Mother whose sea view was blocked by illegal wall is shocked as council back developers who built it

A mother has spoken of her dismay after learning that contractors who built an illegal concrete wall in front of her property had the backing of her local council.

Liz Bates says ‘unscrupulous’ developers who built a block of luxury flats outside her flat in Poole Bay, Dorset, have cut £50,000 from the property.

Mum blew 16ft by 8ft privacy wall and also made ‘a mockery of the planning system’.

Vivar Estates, who built the wall without planning permission, filed a retrospective application to preserve it, strangely claiming they were doing Ms Bates a favour.

The new cliff-top flats have large windows, which can lead to ‘mutual glances’ between two homeowners.

So they built the large privacy wall, and by doing so they conveniently opened up the possibility of adding a roof terrace to the apartment in front of the wall, which increased the value of the house.

Planning officers at Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council initially agreed with Ms Bates that the wall was ‘visually intrusive’ and had a ‘materially detrimental impact on neighboring residents’.

But after reviewing the developers’ revised plans, officials now recommend approving the wall despite dozens of objections.

Mrs Bates’ house (highlighted) is located just behind the new luxury flat development in Poole. Developers Vivir Estates involved in the controversy claim the illegal wall will provide privacy for it and its new neighbors

View of the new luxury apartments from Mrs. Bates’ window. New cliff-top flats have large windows which could lead to ‘mutual glances’ between two homeowners

Old view from Mrs. Bates’ window. Vivar Estates, who built the wall without planning permission, made a retrospective application to keep it, strangely claiming they were doing Ms Bates a favour.

Ms Bates, who had hoped the council would get developers to demolish the wall, said she was ‘very disappointed’ at the news which brought down the planning system.

He said: ‘I am understandably very disappointed with the council’s planning department.

‘My main concerns with this retrospective planning application are that the concern for a roof terrace at that location in the first place was not properly addressed.

‘The previous planning application was not transparent and did not contain any indication that the roof terrace would be moved directly to the front of our house.

‘Many local residents feel this will set a very bad precedent for the rest of the project and that it will make a complete mockery of the planning process.

‘It is clear that a situation where every objection is ignored in favor of a single person is not democracy.’

Miss Bates, 42, a property surveyor from Southbourne, Bournemouth, said it ‘made her blood boil’ that the contractors had given her the impression they were doing her a favor by building the wall to protect her privacy.

He said: ‘It really makes my blood boil to read your supporting letters that the wall will not have a ‘detrimental impact’ on my property.

‘The sheer arrogance of these people is really starting to ruin mine and my family’s life.

‘We’ve suffered enough from this ongoing struggle over the last few years and it seems particularly unfair that they keep pushing harder and harder.

‘We are all very disappointed that BCP have not issued an enforcement order for them to remove the wall until they have received full planning permission.

‘Along with all my neighbours, family and residents, I will continue to fight these unnecessary and harmful changes.’

Two- and four-storey blocks of 27 flats are being built on the former council car park in front of 24 existing properties.

BCP Municipality put it up for sale in 2017 due to low use of the car park, but changed its mind and rejected two planning applications for the site.

The proposals were rejected after Vivir Estates lodged an objection and a planning inspector sided with 1,500 local residents, including Ms Bates, objecting to the plans.

He said: ‘We feel like we are being forced out of our home.

‘We want to move, but the real estate agents told us that the house has lost too much value due to this development, we cannot do it, so we are stuck here.

‘We will no longer be able to enjoy our outside space and we have lost so much natural light.

Ms Bates said she and residents ‘felt like we were being forced out of our homes’ because of the new development

Two- and four-storey blocks of 27 flats are being built on the former council car park in front of 24 existing properties.

‘Every time we look out our front windows we see that huge brick wall.

‘Everyone says, ‘These NIMBYs don’t want to lose their sea view,’ but when you see how close the wall is, you realize how overwhelming it is.

‘Parts of the development will be four storeys high, so it’s going to be an absolute beast.

‘We’re sick to death of this.’

In the new application, consultants Pure Town Planning, acting on behalf of Vivir Estates, said: ‘During construction…the applicant has identified that potential mutual oversight may occur.

‘The approved plans feature large windows on the east façade overlooking a flat roof.

‘It is clear that the approved plans allow for mutual review between the parties’ [two flats].

‘To remedy this situation the applicant has constructed a privacy wall over part of the approved flat roof, which also allows for the formation of a modest roof terrace.

‘Given the minor nature of the proposed changes, the changes to the approved plan will not have any detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area or the privacy/amenity of neighboring properties.

‘The minor changes introduced to the approved plans will continue to deliver a high quality housing development on site in line with approval.’

In their report ahead of Thursday’s planning committee hearing, town planners said: ‘The proposed changes are seen as minor and acceptable in all respects.

‘The proposed changes do not cause any detrimental effects beyond the approved plan.

‘The scheme will not damage the character and appearance of the area and will not have a materially detrimental impact on neighboring residents.’