Residents say developers built 'illegal' 8ft concrete privacy wall that blocks sea view in Bournemouth

A Bournemouth resident has accused developers of erecting an allegedly unauthorised 8ft-high concrete privacy wall that has blocked her sea view and, she says, infringed her family's privacy.

Liz Bates, 42, a first-floor flat owner in the Southbourne area, said the 20ft-by-8ft wall was added to the end of a roof terrace being built as part of a 27-flat development on a former council car park. Bates said the structure was built despite an intervention from council planning officers and that the change will harm her property's value and livability.

Bates said the works began earlier this year and that brackets for a terrace appeared about two months before the wall was completed. She said she raised concerns with builders who told her the brackets were for a terrace wall and that she reported the installation to the local authority. Bates said planners intervened and instructed the developer to stop because no planning application for the wall had been submitted, but construction continued and the wall was finished.

The developer, Vivir Estates, has applied for a "non-material amendment" to the original planning permission for the development, a type of change that is intended to be minor and not significantly alter a scheme's design or impact. Bates and some neighbours told reporters they do not consider the wall to be a non-material change given its size and its effect on outlook, daylight and privacy for the 24 existing properties that front the development site.

Neighbours said parts of the development will be four storeys high and that the terrace wall is an "overbearing" addition. David Burden, another resident, told reporters the wall is unnecessary and said it sets a worrying precedent for incremental changes to approved schemes. Fiona Proctor, a nearby resident, said the addition was not in the original plans and amounted to a loss of privacy for people already living in the area.

Bates, a mother of two and a property inspector by profession, said estate agents have advised that selling her home may not be feasible because the development has lowered its market value. Local estate-agent estimates previously cited in reporting suggested properties affected by the development could fall by as much as £50,000.

BCP Council originally put the car park up for sale in 2017, and two planning applications for the site were refused by the council before Vivir Estates appealed. A planning inspector subsequently sided with the developer, overruling the council despite about 1,500 local objections to the scheme. Construction work on the four blocks and associated parking was underway this year.

Vivir Estates has defended the overall development in earlier statements, saying it would enhance the area and raise property prices. Eddie Fitzsimmons of Vivir Estates said in 2023 that "no homeowner in the UK has the right to a view" under civil law and characterised the project as likely to increase local property values. Representatives of Vivir Estates were contacted for comment on the recently added privacy wall.

Bates said the wall has left her and her children feeling exposed, with builders able to look into their home at early hours, and that smoke from on-site smokers and terrace barbecues has blown into the property. She said the family has lived in the area for about 100 years and that she would invite a planning officer to view the impact firsthand.

The case highlights tensions that can arise between small-scale homeowners and larger development projects, particularly where planning permissions are amended on the basis of what developers call minor alterations. The council has been asked to consider the developer's non-material amendment and to respond to residents' complaints about the wall and its effects on daylight, outlook and privacy.

Any further enforcement action or decisions on the amendment will be taken by BCP Council under its planning and enforcement procedures. The planning inspector's earlier decision to allow the development to proceed remains part of the public record, as do the objections lodged during the application and appeal process.