A developer has been ordered to remove a 16-foot-long brick wall that obstructed a woman’s sea view and left her feeling confined in her home in Bournemouth, Dorset. The wall, measuring six feet high, was constructed without planning permission on a luxury apartment block comprising 27 flats in the Southbourne area.

Liz Bates, the resident affected, argued the wall diminished the value of her property by approximately £50,000. The two-storey building in front of her property includes an outdoor roof terrace, with the wall intended to provide privacy for the new residents by shielding them from her balcony.

Vivir Estates, the developer responsible for the construction, appealed after Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) council refused their retrospective planning application submitted in February. The Planning Inspectorate has since rejected the appeal.

Inspector David Kay ruled that the wall has a “harmful overbearing impact” on Bates’s home. He noted that the roof terrace was considerably larger than what could be considered modest and might be used for sizeable gatherings, potentially leading to “significant levels of noise and disturbance” for Bates. Kay further pointed to the risk of conversations being overheard, emphasizing that while future occupants of the new apartments would be aware of privacy issues prior to moving in, Bates had no opportunity to anticipate them as an existing resident.

In his decision, Kay stated that the development was contrary to the local development plan as a whole and that no material considerations justified approval outside of the plan’s provisions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Bates described the decision as a “huge sense of relief” and called on the council to take immediate enforcement action to remove the wall. She said residents should not be required to monitor unauthorized work themselves, urging the council to adopt a firm stance using its enforcement powers.

Vivir Estates have been contacted for comment regarding the failed appeal but had not responded at the time of publication. BCP council declined to comment on whether enforcement action would be taken or to provide any timelines.