A homeowner says she has been left furious after a developer applied to replace an illegal brick wall blocking her sea views with a frosted glass screen.
The 16ft-by-6ft brick wall was erected as part of a luxury flats development built in front of Liz Bates’ home without planning permission. Mrs Bates said the obstruction has reduced the value of her seaside flat by an estimated £50,000.
Developer Eddie Fitzsimmons was previously refused permission by the local authority to retain the wall.
An appeal was also rejected, with a government planning inspector issuing a strongly critical assessment of the structure.
Rather than remove the wall, however, Mr Fitzsimmons has lodged a fresh planning application seeking permission to replace it with an opaque glass barrier.
The proposed screen would need to be frosted to prevent what is described as ‘mutual overlooking’ between the neighbouring properties, meaning Mrs Bates’ sea view would remain obscured.
The application argues that the replacement would ‘not create any harmful impact…on the living conditions of the occupiers of any neighbouring properties’.
Mrs Bates has condemned the proposal, insisting that any wall or terrace in the location is unlawful and would continue to damage her living conditions.
Homeowner Liz Bates, whose sea views were blocked by an illegal brick wall, has criticised the developer’s proposal to replace it with frosted glass.
Mrs Bates’ former sea view before a block of luxury flats was constructed in front of her home.
The brick ‘privacy’ wall built illegally at the development (left) and Mrs Bates’ balcony (right)
She called on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council to carry out enforcement action to make sure the wall is swiftly knocked down and not rebuilt in another form.
She is one of about 100 residents who have claimed their lives have been ‘ruined’ by the development of four cliff-top apartment blocks of 27 flats in front of their homes in the affluent Southbourne area of Bournemouth, Dorset.
Mrs Bates, 42, a property inspector, said: ‘It’s like hitting your head against a brick wall dealing with this developer.
‘The terrace will just be slightly smaller but still in the same position, albeit a couple of metres further away from us.
‘They obviously seem to think that two metres will make all the difference to sound and smells travelling.’
She added: ‘I am extremely frustrated that we are once again having to respond to a retrospective planning application for something the developer was explicitly told by the council to stop building when the wall was first started – yet he chose to ignore that advice and continued regardless.
‘For me, the most important issue now is that the council must properly take into account the planning inspector’s findings, particularly the very serious concerns raised about the effect of the terrace in this location on noise and nuisance to my property.
‘The report provides independent scrutiny of the impact this development has on our home.
‘Those findings cannot simply be brushed aside because the developer has already constructed the terrace and wall.
‘The fact that something has been built does not make its planning impact any less significant.
‘We have already endured a huge amount of stress and disruption as a result of what has happened at this site.
‘What residents need now is for the council to stand firm, apply the planning rules properly and consider the actual harm being caused to existing residents – not simply find a way to retrospectively make unacceptable development acceptable.
RELATED: Pope Leo XIV Receives Symbolic Sphere in AI Dignity Push
‘I want the council to look at the full history of this matter, including the developer being told to stop, his decision to carry on regardless, and the planning inspector’s findings.
‘If the development is unacceptable in planning terms, then I believe the council needs to have the resolve to act accordingly.
‘After everything residents have been through, we are simply asking for the planning system to be respected and for the protection of existing residents to be taken seriously.’
In February, BCP Council refused retrospective planning permission for the wall, with the developers soon thereafter lodging an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
The developers claimed the wall was necessary to prevent ‘mutual overlooking’ between the new apartment and Mrs Bates’ balcony.
The proximity between Mrs Bates’ home and the new development means her views have been completely obscured by the brick wall
The council previously ordered the developer to demolish the 16ft long, 6ft high wall which was added without permission
But Inspector David Kay said that the wall had a ‘harmful overbearing impact’ on Mrs Bates’ home and the size of the roof terrace ‘far exceeded what could be reasonably described as modest’.
He added that the terrace could be used for large parties which would cause ‘significant levels of noise and disturbance’ to Mrs Bates.
He highlighted the risk of ‘overheard conversations’ and said 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.
In their latest application, Mr Fitzsimmons’ Vivir Estate company said they will shorten the terrace so it is no longer large enough to host parties.
They said the glass screen would ‘not result in an overbearing impact’ upon Mrs Bates.
The new application states: ‘Following the Inspector’s decision, the applicant instructed their architect to prepare amended plans for a substantially reduced roof terrace which would feature a glazed balustrading and a 1.8m high obscure glass privacy screen facing [Mrs Bates’ home].
‘The privacy wall is no longer proposed and the existing wall will be removed as part of the revised proposal.
‘Given its limited height and the separation distance, the proposed glass privacy screen would not result in an overbearing impact upon [Mrs Bates].
‘It is recognised that the outlook from the neighbouring terrace would change, but change does not equate to material harm in planning terms.
‘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 nor the living conditions of the occupiers of any neighbouring properties.’
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 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 objecting to the plans.
Daily Mail has contacted Vivir Estates for comment.