Developer loses appeal against order to demolish illegal six-foot wall which blocked a family's sea view and shaved around £50k off value of their home

A 'disingenuous' property developer could be forced to demolish an illegal privacy wall that blocked a family's sea view after losing a planning appeal.The 16ft-long, 6ft-high brick wall, which was built without permission as part of a 27-apartment luxury development, has knocked an estimated £50,000 off the value of Liz Bates' home in the affluent Southbourne area of Bournemouth, Dorset.The towering wall has also opened up the possibility of a roof terrace being added to the flat in front, boosting the apartment's value.After the BCP Council refused retrospective planning permission for the wall in February, Vivir Estates lodged an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.The appeal came after the developer sparked anger among residents after they realised the blocks of luxury flats would block their sea views.The two and four-storey blocks in the main development are being built on a former council car park in front of 24 existing properties.BCP Council put the Southbourne Crossroads car park site up for sale in 2017 but later refused two planning applications for the development.They were overruled after Vivir Estates launched an appeal and a planning inspector sided with them despite 1,500 locals objecting to the plans. The 16ft-long, 6ft-high brick wall, which was built without permission as part of a 27-apartment luxury development, has knocked an estimated £50,000 off the value of Liz Bates' home in the affluent Southbourne area of Bournemouth, Dorset Ms Bates is seen on her terrace behind the luxury development of 27 flatsResidents were further infuriated when the firm applied to build a two-storey detached house on the 'tiny bit' of remaining green space. Mrs Bates previously said Vivir Estates director Eddie Fitzsimmons had 'gone against every word and promise he has told the local residents'. The mother-of-two continued: 'He has quite simply ruined the lives of around 100 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 'harmful overbearing impact' on her home.Mr Kay said the size of the roof terrace 'far exceeded what could be reasonably described as modest' and highlighted the risk of 'overheard conversations'. He added that while the apartment's new occupiers would be aware of the 'privacy' issues before moving in, Mrs Bates could not have known as she already lived there. Mr Kay concluded: 'The appeal development would be contrary to the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations that would justify determining other than in accordance with it. 'Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.' The two and four-storey blocks in the main development are being built on a former council car park in front of 24 existing properties Development company Vivir Estates has now gone against its alleged pledge to residents to protect some green space, seen in the map of the building plansVivir Estates argued the wall was necessary to prevent 'mutual overlooking' between the new apartment and Mrs Bates' balcony. In the minor amendment application for the wall, 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 the same vein as the approval.'But Cllr Michael Tarling said in response to the application: 'It is absolutely obvious to everyone what the developer is doing which is to try and maximise sales revenue - you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. They thought they could try and sneak a wall in later and that is incredibly disingenuous.' Ms Bates's view beforehand - she has accused the developer of 'going against every word and promise he has told local residents'Mrs Bates said the appeal outcome gave her a 'huge sense of relief' and urged BCP Council to carry out enforcement action straight away.She said: 'Winning the appeal has given us a huge sense of relief, but it is difficult to feel that the nightmare is over while building work continues.'We have spent a long time feeling that we have had to fight simply to ensure that the planning system is 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 Council's adopted Planning Enforcement Plan.'Vivir Estates have been approached for comment over the unsuccessful appeal.