Yoga teacher and her catering boss husband lose home court battle

Yoga teacher and her catering boss husband who were ‘exiled from local wine society and picnics’ lose court battle with wealthy neighbours over plans to knock down their £1.5m house and build two new homes

• Emma and Terence McGuinness locked horns with families in Oxshott village

An ex-figure skater and her husband who claimed they were frozen out of the local wine society by neighbours over plans to demolish their £1.5m home have lost their court fight.

Emma and Terence McGuinness were at odds with families living around their sprawling four-bed home, Birch Mead, in Oxshott village, Surrey, which they plan to demolish to make way for two new houses.

Figure skater turned yoga teacher Mrs McGuinness, 41, and her husband, 45, a boss at a catering company, want to have a second house so they can look after her poorly father, who once worked for King Charles.

The dispute has split on the secluded 47-house Ridgeway enclave, Central London County Court heard, and they claim they have been ‘shunned and ostracised’ by some neighbours on the estate, where houses can sell for over £2m.

Mr McGuinness says they have ‘lost touch’ with some in the community over the plans, with his wife no longer taking part in the ‘wine society,’ chats at the gate or summer picnics.

Emma and Terence McGuinness outside Central London County Court after hearing in row over building plans

Terence and Emma McGuinness’ home in Oxshott, which is centre of court row over building plans.

Mrs McGuinness was formerly a competitive figure skater, but has now carved out a successful career as a teacher of trendy Bikram ‘hot’ yoga

The couple were sued by the owner of the private roads accessing the estate – Ridgeway (Oxshott) Management Ltd (ROML) – which sought an injunction banning them from using their roads to carry out the build.

The company – whose directors and shareholders are made up of neighbours on the estate – say conditions of sale and access rights restrict owners to ‘one plot one house’ and that a two-house building project would cause mayhem on the ‘idyllic and secluded’ private estate.

And now, after a week in court Judge Simon Monty has ruled against the couple, granting the company an injunction barring them from using the estate roads for building traffic.

He said the conditions of sale were ‘limited to the use of the plot for a single dwelling house’, adding: ‘I was particularly struck by the genuinely held views of the residents, supported by ROML itself, that the ‘one plot, one house’ principle is of great importance to them’.

While some of the McGuinness’ neighbours had supported their plans more than eight out of ten of those on the estate opposed the build, said the judge, noting that the couple had bought their home ‘with their eyes wide open’ and in full knowledge of the restrictions slapped on any development.

Mrs McGuinness’ dad, Simon Barnett, who formerly worked for King Charles before retiring, suffers from chronic ill health and wishes to relocate with his wife to live alongside his daughter and her family

The couple say their plans are not about making money or creating a luxury home but to ensure that Mrs McGuinness’ frail father can live beside them, where they can look after him

‘In my judgment they bought Birch Mead knowing that there were restrictions in place – and if properly advised they would have been told that they could not apply to remove them – and they should be held to their bargain,’ he said.

Mrs McGuinness was formerly a competitive figure skater, but has now carved out a successful career as a teacher of trendy Bikram ‘hot’ yoga.

Her husband has a background in acting and drama, having trained at London’s Central School of Speech and Drama, where Mrs McGuinness was also a student, but is now sales director at a catering firm.

The couple already have planning permission to level their existing four-bed family home – which is valued online at around £1.5m – and substitute two new homes.

They say their plans are not about making money or creating a luxury home but to ensure that Mrs McGuinness’ frail father can live beside them, where they can look after him.

Emma and Terence McGuinness locked horns with families in Oxshott village in Surrey

Mrs McGuinness’ dad, Simon Barnett, who formerly worked for King Charles before retiring, suffers from chronic ill health and wishes to relocate with his wife to live alongside his daughter and her family.

And the couple’s barrister, George Woodhead, accused some members of the company of ‘nimbyism’ in blocking the McGuinness’ project.

But for the residents’ company, barrister Miriam Seitler highlighted the potential road chaos flowing from the build, which she claimed would shatter the calm of a quiet estate.

‘The disruption and damage to be caused in the short term is significant: the construction period for two dwellings will be substantially longer and more intensive than for one,’ she said.

‘The experts agree that one house could be built in 12 months, whereas the proposed development would take 21 months.

Giving evidence, Mr McGuinness said he and his family had ‘lost touch with people’ and felt ‘ostracised’ due to discord over their plans, while before they had mingled freely on the estate where they have lived for ten years.

However, the company’s barrister pointed out that socialising had been curtailed in recent years due to Covid, also noting that Mr and Mrs McGuinness had been invited to Jubilee and Coronation street parties.

Mr McGuinness agreed they had gone to both events, explaining in relation to the Jubilee party: ‘we made a point of wanting to go because I don’t think this is a personal issue and we wanted to be there because we felt we should be.

‘But all that day, I was watching to make sure that Emma wasn’t on her own – and it wasn’t what it should have been.’

The barrister said that no one had stopped the couple socialising, but Mr McGuinness replied: ‘What I’m talking about is things like Emma no longer being part of the wine society and not mixing like she did – not having conversations at the gate and not having summer picnics with people.

‘That’s the real relationship which has stopped and that’s because of the way that this has been handled.’

He added: ‘Certainly we felt ostracised. The last two years have been extremely difficult for us.’

When he first floated his ideas to his near neighbours Mr McGuinness said that most did not object, although ‘there was a ground swell of opposition once the planning process got underway’.

For the couple, barrister George Woodhead highlighted construction projects carried out by other residents, with most of the 47 houses on the estate ‘extended, rebuilt or improved’ at some point.

‘There is a strong sense of ‘nimbyism,’ ‘pulling up the ladder’ and hypocrisy to the position adopted by some members of the company,’ he said, although he added: ‘not all members of the company are opposed to the proposed works.’

He continued: ‘For them, this is less about making money and more about living in close proximity to Mrs McGuinness’ father, who is unwell and wishes to be very near to his family.

‘Their children are at school and engage in local activities. The family are embedded in the local community, such that moving house is undesirable.

‘Their motives for the development are commendable: their focus is on family, not money.’

He said the plot has an ‘unusually large frontage’ and is well placed on the estate in terms of lorry access so that any road obstruction would be short-lived.

They had also offered compensation for any damage done, he said, while the works would only take place between 8am and 6pm on weekdays and 9am to 1pm on Saturdays.

But Ms Seitler said the couple’s project went beyond anything in the past, alleging that many on the estate felt a ‘particular concern about multiple dwellings’.

The judge labelled Mr McGuinness a ‘very genuine, open and honest witness’ adding, ‘There was some evidence in Mr McGuinness’s statement – and it was the subject of cross-examination – about how he and his wife had been ostracised by other residents, and about how much they had participated in social events on the estate in the past, but now in the light of this dispute they had been ignored.

‘In my judgment, absolutely nothing turns on any of this. Feelings are undoubtedly running high amongst residents on the estate, and it would not be surprising if there was some bad feeling towards the McGuinness’s.

‘Whether or not that is misplaced is I believe not for me to say, as I do not think it has any impact on the decisions I need to make, so I do not make any findings in this regard.’

The judge highlighted evidence from those opposed about potential mayhem caused by the works and the blighting impact on an ‘idyllic’ rural enclave.

One resident, Ewa Witkowski, of Eavescote, testified that she had bought her home specifically due to the charms of the tucked away estate she termed a ‘beautiful hidden away secluded gem’.

‘I was absolutely smitten by its ‘fairy land’ qualities of being bounded by green verges punctuated all along the drive with tall slender white barked weeping silver birches,’ she told the court.

The judge rejected claims of ‘hypocrisy’ levelled at some company members in stonewalling the McGuinness’ scheme.

‘I also reject the allegations of hypocrisy, because there is a real difference between an extension to an existing house, and two new houses on one plot.

And he said that as a matter of common sense it might well be possible for the McGuinness to accommodate the Barnetts by simply extending their home.

The injunction effectively stops the couple’s double house development plans by cutting off access for building traffic to the site.

Source: Read Full Article