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 property developer has lost a planning appeal against demolishing an unauthorised six-foot brick wall that blocks a resident's sea view in Southbourne, Bournemouth. The wall, built without permission by Vivir Estates as part of a 27-apartment development, has reportedly cut around £50,000 off the value of Liz Bates' home while enabling a roof terrace to be added to the flat in front of it, boosting that property's worth instead. A planning inspector ruled the structure would have a "harmful overbearing impact" on Ms Bates' property, siding with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council, which had already refused retrospective permission for the wall.
The 16ft-long, 6ft-high wall was erected as part of a wider luxury development on a former council car park, a scheme that has angered around 100 local residents, some 1,500 of whom had objected to the original plans. Planning inspector David Kay found the roof terrace it enabled "far exceeded what could be reasonably described as modest" and raised concerns about overheard conversations, noting that while new occupiers would know about privacy issues before moving in, Ms Bates had no such warning. Vivir Estates had argued the wall was needed to prevent "mutual overlooking" between properties, but the inspector dismissed the appeal, finding it contrary to the local development plan.
- Developer loses appeal to keep illegal wall blocking sea view
- Wall cut about £50,000 off neighbour's home value
- Inspector ordered demolition, citing harmful impact on privacy
New here? Start with this
Planning permission is required for many building projects, and councils can refuse permission when a proposal conflicts with local rules. Developers can appeal those decisions to a planning inspector, who considers the plans and their effects on nearby properties.
Vivir Estates built a block of flats on a former council car park in Southbourne, Bournemouth, including a wall beside Liz Bates’ home. The dispute centres on how the wall and a roof terrace affect neighbouring homes, including views, privacy and property values.
BCP Council refused permission for the wall after it had been built, and the planning inspector upheld that decision. The case matters because it shows how planning decisions can weigh a new development’s design against its impact on existing residents.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The wall may be defended as a practical way to limit overlooking between homes and give residents of the new development some privacy. The developer could argue that the roof terrace and wall formed part of a considered design, and that new occupiers would understand the privacy arrangements before choosing to move in.
The case against
The wall was built without permission and, according to the inspector, has an overbearing effect on a neighbour who had no warning that her sea view and privacy would be affected. Its benefit to the new development, including enabling a substantial roof terrace, may not justify the reported loss in value or the harm to an existing resident’s home.