A ‘disingenuous’ property developer could be forced to demolish an illegal privacy wall blocking a family’s sea view after losing a planning application.
The 5.5 meter long, 1.8 meter high brick wall, which was built without permission as part of a luxury 27-apartment development, is estimated to have knocked £50,000 off the value of Liz Bates’ home in the affluent Southbourne area of Bournemouth, Dorset.
The towering wall has also opened the possibility of adding a roof terrace to the front of the apartment, increasing the value of the apartment.
After Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP) refused retrospective planning permission for the wall in February, Vivir Estates appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.
The call came after the developer sparked anger among residents after they realized the blocks of luxury apartments would block their sea views.
The two- and four-storey buildings in the main development will be built on a former municipal car park for 24 existing homes.
BCP Council put the Southbourne Crossroads car park up for sale in 2017, but later refused two planning applications for the development.
They were rejected after Vivir Estates appealed and a planning inspector sided with them, despite 1,500 local residents objecting to the plans.
Liz Bates on her terrace behind the luxury 27-apartment development, which knocked an estimated £50,000 off the value of her home in the Southbourne area of Bournemouth, Dorset
BEFORE: The mother-of-two’s sea view before work began on the 27-apartment luxury project
Residents’ anger was further increased when the company applied to build a detached two-storey house on the ‘small patch’ of remaining green space.
Ms Bates previously said Vivir Estates director Eddie Fitzsimmons had ‘gone against every word and promise he made to local residents’.
The mother-of-two continued: ‘He simply ruined the lives of around a hundred residents without a single care for anyone.’
But the privacy wall could now be demolished after planning inspector David Kay ruled it would have a ‘detrimental overriding impact’ on her home.
Mr Kay said the size of the roof terrace was ‘much greater than what could reasonably be described as modest’ and highlighted the risk of ‘overheard conversations’.
He added that while the apartment’s new residents would have known about the “privacy” issues before moving in, Ms Bates had no way of knowing because she already lived there.
Mr Kay concludes: ‘The professional development would be inconsistent with the development plan, read in its entirety, and that there are no material considerations which would justify a determination other than in accordance with it.
‘The appeal must therefore be dismissed.’
Mrs Bates’ house (highlighted) is located directly behind a development of new luxury apartments in Poole
BEFORE: A photo of the area in 2024 – with Ms Bates’ estate on the far right – when residents spray-painted the words ‘SOS 1600+ AGAINST ILLEGAL DEVELOPMENT’ in protest
The two- and four-storey blocks in the main development will be built on a former municipal car park for 24 existing homes
Development company Vivir Estates has now gone back on its alleged promise to residents to protect some green space, as seen in the map of the building plans
Vivir Estates argued the wall was necessary to prevent “mutual view” between the new apartment and Ms Bates’ balcony.
In the minor wall amendment application, consultants acting on behalf of Vivir Estates said: ‘During construction… the applicant identified that there may be a potential for mutual overlooking.
‘The approved plans feature large glazing on the east facade overlooking a flat roof. It is understood that the approved plans will allow for mutual monitoring between the two countries [two flats].
‘To remedy this situation, the applicant has built a privacy wall above part of the approved flat roof, which also allows for the creation of a modest roof terrace.
‘Given the minor nature of the proposed changes, the changes to the approved plan would not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area or the privacy/experience of any adjacent properties.
‘The resulting minor changes to the approved plans will continue to deliver a high-quality residential development on the site, which is in line with the approval.’
But Cllr Michael Tarling said in response to the application: ‘It is absolutely clear to everyone what the developer is doing, which is trying to maximize sales revenue – you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that. They thought they could try to sneak into a wall later and that’s incredibly unfair.”
Ms Bates has accused the developer of ‘going against every word and promise he has told local residents’
Ms Bates said the outcome of the appeal has given her a ‘huge sense of relief’ and urged the BCP council to take immediate enforcement action.
She said: ‘Winning the appeal has given us a huge sense of relief, but it is difficult to feel like the nightmare is over as construction work continues.
“We have felt for a long time that we had to fight to ensure that the planning system was respected.”
BCP Council said it would not comment on potential enforcement action or outline timescales.
A spokesperson said: ‘As this is a live investigation it would not be appropriate to comment on any potential enforcement action or timescales at this stage.
‘Any further action will be considered in accordance with national planning policy and guidance, the relevant statutory framework and the Planning Enforcement Plan adopted by Council.’
Vivir Estates has been contacted for comment on the failed appeal.
