PLANS to add two floors on top of a trio of homes that developers said would ‘never happen’ have been refused.

The plans, for the houses on Pearce Avenue in Lilliput, sought prior approval to erect an additional two floors to the existing properties at numbers 44, 46 and 48.

As reported, chief executive of developers Fortitudo, Richard Carr, said the application was a ‘justification move on the chess board’.

Fortitudo has plans lodged to demolish the whole property at number 48 to build three homes, each worth more than £9million.

These plans were recently withdrawn, but Mr Carr said this was to make amendments and that the plans would be resubmitted.

Bournemouth Echo: The amended proposed three homes, with the outline of the current property (purple outline) and the

The permitted development applications for the additional floors were to ‘demonstrate to the planners that the existing property could go up two floors in any case, to justify the height of our new buildings,’ Mr Carr previously said.

The developer also applied to do add floors to the two neighbouring homes, which it does not own.

Now, all three applications to add the additional floors have been refused.

Each application was met with objections, with 12 filed against the plans at number 48, 14 for number 46 and 16 for number 44.

Planning officers said none of the schemes could be ‘undertaken as permitted development’.

Prior approval is needed from the authority’s planning department and was refused ‘on the matters of external appearance’.

Each case officer report said the buildings would be: “a building with a poor, incongruous external appearance both when viewed in isolation and within the wider street scene and from the harbour.”

The reports also said the proposals would be ‘detrimental to the amenities’ of neighbours, with the buildings ‘appearing overbearing’.

For the scheme at number 48, the plans were also refused as it proposed windows in the side of the two floors so would not comply with permitted development law.

For the schemes at numbers 44 and 46, as surveys had not been carried out, ‘there is a degree of ambiguity as to whether the floor to ceiling heights are accurate’, meaning the schemes did not comply.

The plans for number 44 were also refused as the house was built before July 1948 so are not compliant.