A woman who lost a court battle to stop her neighbour’s barn conversion faces legal bills up to £1.4million and the possibility of losing her home. Zoe Bucknell had taken beef farmer Mark Stoneham to the High Court in a bid to stop his plans. But after losing the case she now faces the prospect of losing her own property.
Mrs Bucknell faces an estimated £1.4m legal bill, after having been ordered to pay £300,000 already. A £1m bill is due to be discussed at a future costs hearing.
Mr Stoneham’s building work has been completed and houses he built on his site are now up for sale. Two properties boasting seven bedrooms are on the market for a staggering £2.6m.
Mrs Bucknell had claimed her enjoyment of horse riding would be “adversely affected” due to increased traffic from the new houses.
She also claimed vibrations from building lorries could damage the foundations of her Grade-II listed home, Holywell Farmhouse, near Sevenoaks, Kent.
Richard Clegg, acting for Mrs Bucknell, argued this would be “wrongful use” of the right of way over his client’s driveway and would put her “forever home” in “jeopardy”.
In 2021, Mrs Bucknell obtained an interim injunction banning construction vehicles from using the driveway to access the site.
Mr Stoneham pressed ahead with the conversion despite the lawyer’s objections, creating an alternative track for access to the site across fields.
Mrs Bucknell then sued at the High Court, seeking a permanent injunction to ban building traffic from her driveway and to stop anyone living in the two houses from using it.
She also wanted the farmer to pay her damages, according to MailOnline. But Mr Stoneham fought the claim, insisting Mrs Bucknell was “catastrophising” the situation.
The judge said: “Demolition and construction are facts of everyday life, and there must be give and take in relation to them. It is clear from the evidence of the traffic management experts that the additional use imposed on the driveway by the habitation of two houses built on the yard would be very small in comparison with the existing use.
“There is no evidence any damage would be caused to the (driveway) surface by the increase in traffic movements as a result of two extra houses being inhabited.
“Use by the occupants of two houses on the yard would, in my judgment, not interfere unreasonably with use by others having the like right, nor with the enjoyment by the claimant of her land.
“I do not consider that it would amount to excessive use or that it would cause an actionable nuisance, even in the locality as it was in 2014, or indeed 1972.
“The claimant is not automatically entitled to the maintenance of the same rural peace and quiet that she enjoyed when she bought in 2014.
“A grant of a right of way is not to be restricted to access to the land merely for such purposes as were reasonably required at the date of the grant.”
Mrs Bucknell has been approached for comment.
