A man engaged in a £125,000 legal battle with his neighbors over a bin shed at their upscale country home has faced accusations of ‘unlawfully’ removing a lamppost that was in the way of his new driveway.

Stuart Hunt took Kevin and Kelly Elizabeth Harrison-Ellis to court in June, arguing that their ‘unsightly’ bungalow extension had spoiled his charming view.

The Harrison-Ellises contended that Mr. Hunt did not raise any objections when they initially added a second story to their £1million residence in Goring-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, back in 2020.

It was only after the family installed a modest wooden bin store on their driveway two years later that Mr. Hunt and his partner Anita opposed the expansion.

The legal dispute reached the High Court, resulting in the Harrison-Ellises being ordered to compensate their neighbors £25,000. They also had to dip into their daughter’s university funds to cover more than £100,000 in legal costs.

However, the Daily Mail can now disclose that Mr. Hunt himself faced potential legal repercussions over claims that he ‘bulldozed’ a lamppost outside his £2.3million residence and resisted efforts to reinstall it.

Neighbours on the leafy private road alleged that Mr Hunt ‘took the law into his own hands’ and removed it back in March 2022. They say he then ‘deliberately obstructed’ the contractors who were sent by the council to install a replacement. 

One local, who did not want to be named, said: ‘He seemed to act completely unilaterally. 

‘He just took the law into his own hands. It is completely wrong. In general, this is a friendly lane. 

Another added: ‘The lamppost was on the verge, on the land he owns. He just thought it was his right and he was going to have it taken down.’

Documents show that the street lamp was removed in March 2022, while building work was taking place at Mr Hunt’s property. 

It is understood that the old lamppost, which has since been replaced and moved to a new location, was situated in front of where he wanted to install a new drive. 

Goring Parish Council’s position – the local authority which has jurisdiction for lighting on the road – was that the lamppost was ‘unlawfully removed’. 

However, Mr Hunt disputed this version of events, in turn sparking an 18-month row with the council. 

He claimed that the lamppost was taken down after he sent an email to Oxfordshire County Council, asking them to remove it in October 2021. 

However, the county council, which is not in charge of lighting on the private road, did not respond to the request.

Mr Hunt also argued that all the lampposts in the village were in the process of being replaced – evidence that court documents show was accepted by the judge. 

Nevertheless, in September last year Goring Parish Council approved budget for legal action against Mr Hunt ‘regarding the unauthorised removal of a streetlamp’. 

It is understood that a compromise was eventually reached and the lamppost was replaced later that month in a location approved by him. 

Last week, the Harrison-Ellises spoke out about their ‘devastating’ legal battle with Mr Hunt, which they say has cost them their daughter’s university savings. 

Mr Harrison-Ellis said: ‘I regret it massively. We never wanted to be put in this position, we were stuck.

‘We have had to spend all of our daughter’s university fees which we were saving for.

‘All our savings are gone just to try and defend our home.’

Before buying the property back in 2020, the couple were made aware of historical building restrictions which dated back to when their house and the Hunts’ shared the same plot. 

A covenant stated they could not build anything other than a single-storey home on the land once shared by the two properties.

The Harrison-Ellises tried to visit the Hunts to discuss their plans but learnt their property was rented out.

They therefore gave the estate agent a letter to pass on to the Hunts, which said they were thinking of buying the house but wanted to add a storey to the property.

The letter said: ‘Ideally, with your permission, we would like to have the covenants removed and work alongside yourselves and the architect to come up with the best solution for all.

‘We are happy to email or to bring the documentation reference covenants for you to see.’

The Hunts received the letter but did not respond, according to High Court documents.

Without a response, the Harrison-Ellises went ahead and bought Hillside for £740,000 in March 2020.

They applied for planning permission for ‘a first floor extension with roof changed, new porch, and new roof above garage’.

Permission was granted and building work began in June 2020. 

Mr Harrison-Ellis continued: ‘I regret the situation massively. This was supposed to be our dream home.

‘Now it all just feels tainted. The main regret is buying the house. It’s been nothing short of horrendous since day one.

‘If he [Mr Hunt] had come forward in the first place we wouldn’t have nearly £150,000 in court bills.

‘We wouldn’t have gone through two and a half years of hell.

‘It just feels like we were in a no-win situation. He [Mr Hunt] didn’t object and then tried to extort money out of us.

‘He took us to court over a breach he knew about.

‘Even though in a way we won because we get to keep the house, we’ve still lost tens of thousands of pounds.

‘That was meant to pay for our kids’ education. We were looking at university fees and it’s all gone now.

‘I can’t even talk about it.

‘But we do want to speak out because we want people to be aware of how these things work.

‘We didn’t know that planning permission didn’t trump a covenant. We didn’t know that you could get all the correct planning permission and still be taken to court.

‘We want to make other people aware.’

Judge Elizabeth Cooke and Mrs Diane Martin ultimately deemed that there had been a loss of privacy for the Hunts’ in a judgment handed down by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

However, they accepted the Harrison-Ellises’ argument that the Hunts ‘appeared to have been perfectly happy about their home until January 2023’, when the bin shed was built.

The judgment said: ‘They had no interest in the content of the restrictions until they took offence at the bin store.

‘Their reaction to the bin store makes it clear that had they been the slightest bit unhappy about the extension of Hillside they would have taken steps to check the content of the covenants while the development was happening and before it was completed.

‘It is not right to penalise the applicants now, when reversing the extension will be expensive and destructive, for the objectors’ failure to act.’

It said that it was unclear why the Hunts had waited ‘so long’ to look into the restrictions, adding that many issues could have been avoided had they responded to the Harrison-Ellises’ initial letter.

‘We do not suggest that their indignation at the development is entirely insincere,’ the judgment continued, ‘but we take the view that it is exaggerated, in light of the fact that they were clearly unbothered until January 2023.’

The High Court granted the Harrison-Ellises’ application to amend the covenants and permit their extension, which has boosted the value of the property to just over £1million, but ordered they pay £25,000 in compensation to the Hunts’.

They concluded: ‘In our judgment any carelessness or naivety on the part of the applicants is far outweighed by the unfairness of the objectors’ behaviour.

‘We have no hesitation in exercising our discretion to modify the restrictions so as to permit the extension of Hillside as it stands.’

Reflecting on the judgment, Mr Harrison-Ellis said: ‘It’s not nice after fighting for two-and-half years – but in a way we get to keep the house that we built.

‘We don’t know if we are going to have to pay this in a one-off sum of money.’

The Daily Mail approached the Hunts for comment.