A mother has expressed her distress after discovering that the local council has supported developers who constructed an unauthorized concrete wall in front of her home. This decision has left her feeling frustrated and disappointed.
Liz Bates, who lives in Poole Bay, Dorset, claims that the “unscrupulous” developers responsible for building a luxury apartment block near her property have reduced its value by £50,000. She is understandably upset by the impact this has had on her investment.
Bates has criticized the 16-foot by 8-foot privacy wall, saying it undermines the integrity of the planning system. The wall, which she views as an illegal structure, has only added to her sense of injustice.
The developers, Vivar Estates, constructed the wall without initial planning approval but have since applied for retroactive permission. In their application, they argued that the wall actually benefits Bates by providing privacy, a claim she finds hard to accept.
The newly constructed cliff-top apartments feature large windows that could result in privacy issues for both Bates and the new residents. The developers erected the privacy wall to address this, but it has also conveniently allowed them to propose a roof terrace for the flats, potentially increasing their value.
So they built the large privacy wall and in doing so they conveniently opened up the prospect of adding a roof terrace to the flat in front of the wall, raising the value of it.
Planning officers at Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council initially agreed with Mrs Bates that the wall was ‘visually intrusive’ and had a ‘materially harmful impact on neighbouring residents’.
But after studying the developers’ revised plans the officials are now recommending the wall be approved, despite dozens of objections to it.
Liz Bates (pictured) says the massive 16ft by 8ft wall has slashed £50,000 off her flat after it blocked her panoramic view of Poole Bay in Dorset
Mrs Bates’ home (highlighted) is directly behind a development of new luxury flats in Poole. Vivir Estates, the developers involved in the spat, claim the illegal wall will provide privacy for her and the new neighbours
The view of the new luxury flats from Mrs Bates’ window. The new cliff-top flats have large glazing which could lead to ‘mutual overlooking’ between the two homeowners
Mrs Bates old view from her window. Vivar Estates – who built the wall without planning permission – submitted a retrospective application to keep the wall which outlandishly claimed they had done Mrs Bates a favour by erecting it
Mrs Bates, who was hoping that the council would make the developers take the wall down, said she was ‘very disappointed’ at the news and blasting the planning system.
She said: ‘Understandably I’m very disappointed in the council’s planning department.
‘My main concerns of this retrospective planning application have not been addressed properly, the concern for a roof terrace in that location in the first place.
‘The previous planning application was not transparent and did not make any indication that the roof terrace was going to be relocated, bringing it directly in front of our house.
‘So many locals feel this is going to set a very bad precedent for the rest of the development and feel it makes a complete mockery of the planning process.
‘It is clearly not a democracy when every objection has been ignored, in favour of one person.’
Mrs Bates, 42, a property inspector from Southbourne, Bournemouth, said it ‘made her blood boil’ the developers gave the impression they were doing her a favour by building the wall to protect her privacy.
She said: ‘Reading their supporting letter that the wall will have ‘no harmful impact’ on my property really does make my blood boil.
‘The pure arrogance of these people is really starting to ruin mine and my family’s lives.
‘We have suffered enough over the last few years with this ongoing battle and the fact that they just keep pushing more and more all the time seems particularly unfair.
‘We were all very disappointed that BCP did not issue an enforcement order to make them remove the wall, until such time that he has full planning permission.
‘I, along with all my neighbours, family and local residents will continue to fight these unnecessary and harmful amendments.’
The two and four-storey blocks of 27 flats are being built on a former council car park in front of 24 existing properties.
BCP Council put the car park up for sale in 2017 when it was underused but changed their minds and denied two planning applications for the site.
They were overruled after Vivir Estates launched an appeal and a planning inspector sided with them despite 1,500 locals, including Mrs Bates, objecting to the plans.
She said: ‘We feel like we’re being forced out of our home.
‘We would like to move but the estate agents have told us the house has lost so much value because of this development we wouldn’t be able to, so we are trapped here.
‘We are no longer going to be able to enjoy our outside space and we have lost a lot of natural light.
Mrs Bates says she and fellow residents ‘feel like we’re being forced out of our home’ by the new development
The two and four-storey blocks of 27 flats are being built on a former council car park in front of 24 existing properties
‘Every time we look out of our front windows we see that huge brick wall.
‘Everyone says ‘these NIMBYs don’t want to lose their sea views’ but when you see the reality of how close that wall is you realise how overbearing it is.
‘Parts of the development will be four storeys high so it is going to be an absolute monstrosity.
‘We are sick to death of it.’
In the new application, Pure Town Planning, consultants acting on behalf of Vivir Estates, said: ‘During construction…the applicant identified that potential mutual overlooking could occur.
‘The approved plans feature extensive glazing on the east elevation looking out over a flat roof.
‘It is clear the approved plans allow for mutual overlooking between the [two flats].
‘To remedy this situation, the applicant has constructed a privacy wall above 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 amendments to the approved scheme would not create any harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area or the privacy/amenity of any neighbouring properties.
‘The resulting minor changes to the approved plans will continue to deliver a high-quality residential development at the site which is in same vein as the approval.’
Town planners, in their report ahead of Thursday’s planning committee hearing, said: ‘The proposed amendments are minor and are considered acceptable on balance.
‘The proposed changes do not result in any detrimental impacts over and above the approved scheme.
‘The scheme would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and will not have a materially harmful impact on neighbouring residents.’
Join the debate
Do YOU think the wall should be torn down?
