MICHELLE MORRISON, wife of singer Van Morrison, had “no confidence” that her neighbour’s proposed landscaping scheme would provide privacy for her home in Dalkey, Dublin, the High Court heard yesterday.
In an affidavit, Ms Morrison said she had reluctantly taken proceedings against her local council over its alleged failure to protect her privacy because she had “no other means” of protecting the amenity of her property and the privacy of her family.
Ms Morrison, Kilross House, Sorrento Road, said she strongly disputed claims by a tree expert for her neighbours, Mary and Desmond Kavanagh, that their proposed shrub and tree planting scheme would provide privacy.
Yesterday was the third day of proceedings by Ms Morrison against Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Co Council in which she alleges the council failed to protect her privacy when it accepted a notice from the Kavanaghs last September that they were in compliance with a planning permission issued the previous August for their Mount Alverno home.
Talks on Wednesday to try to resolve the dispute failed and the case resumed yesterday. Ms Morrison is seeking leave to quash the compliance order on grounds there was alleged unauthorised development of the driveway to Mount Alverno at the time. She claims the decision only provided for the planting of shrubs between the properties when trees had been stipulated as part of three planning permissions issued to the Kavanaghs.
While the council issued enforcement notices against the Kavanaghs and most of those matters were later rectified by subsequent applications, it was anticipated the council would bring a prosecution but this had not occurred to date, she said.
She did not understand a process whereby her neighbours could obtain a compliance order for a drawing which “clearly indicates unauthorised development”, including the driveway.
She disputed claims by Mark Boyle, the Kavanagh’s landscaping expert, they were committed to achieving a high standard of landscaping screening using trees and shrubs. “I do not have any confidence in these assurances,” she said. She regarded them as “disingenuous in the extreme” because they did not even take account of the fact eight trees had been removed since last September.
Those trees were “clearly marked for retention” in the original landscape proposals, known as the “Murray Plan” which was submitted as part of the planning applications, Ms Morrison said.
Eamon Galligan SC, for Ms Morrison, yesterday said she had not opposed the Kavanaghs planning applications and had entered into discussions with them over their plans. Mr Justice Hanna remarked she was “trying to be a constructive neighbour”.
Counsel read affidavits from tree experts for both sides in which there was considerable dispute over what was required.
Mr Galligan said there was a difference of interpretation about the Murray Plan which identified certain trees for retention, removal and replanting. The Kavanaghs had argued the Murray Plan was later overtaken with the “Ledbetter Drawings” submitted as part of compliance applications which they later submitted.
Counsel said it was the view of Ms Morrison’s expert, arborolgist Joseph McConville, that certain trees should not have been removed and that shrubs in pots like bay laurel and cherry laurel did not constitute replacement trees. The trees that needed to be replaced – including sycamore, poplar and cypress – provided a level of screening that shrubs could not, counsel said.
Earlier, Mr Justice Hanna asked the parties to provide him with an agreed schedule of which trees were removed and which remained. He also asked if there was a legal definition of what a tree was. Mr Galligan said the authority on the matter appeared to be The law of trees, forests and hedgerows by Charles Mynors.
After counsel said he was having difficulty with what the experts were saying about what is a tree or shrub, the judge remarked it may be a case of not being able to see the wood from the trees. The case continues.