Developer’s plans to turn 19ft garage into Sandbanks mansion rejected for FOURTH time – as he launches scathing attack

A DEVELOPER’S plans to turn a 19ft-wide garage into a mansion on Millionaire’s Row have been rejected for a fourth time. Peter Mullins launched a scathing attack on officials after spending five years seeking permission to transform the £600,000 site on the exclusive resort of Sandbanks in Poole, Dorset. Peter Mullins has spent five years seeking permission to transform his 19ft-wide garage Credit: BNPS The £600,000 garage is on the exclusive Sandbanks peninsula where houses can sell for over £1million Credit: BNPS After his plans to flip the tiny garage on the peninsula were rejected a fourth time, Peter appealed the decision. In the appeal, his planning consultant Colin Henry accused officials of a “personal attack” against his client. Sign up for The Sun newsletter Thank you! In a blistering letter to the planning inspector, Colin claimed the council’s decision was “emotionally charged” and the requirements being suggested were “unreasonably complex”. He also suggested the council was unfairly singling out Peter’s development, stating new build homes in the surrounding area had been approved without the same kind of scrutiny. The developer’s plans to transform the property have been rejected a fourth time Credit: BNPS Before Peter added a pitched roof to the garage Credit: BNPS The tirade fell on deaf ears as the inspector dismissed the appeal, sending Peter back to the drawing board. In 2021, the property developer bought the garage on the sought-after strip where a home could be worth more than £1million. After failing to get permission for a pair of slim semi-detached houses and then for two flats, he put a pitched roof on the garage, claiming the leaky flat one had reached the end of its life. But once the work was done, he applied for a change of use to turn the garage into a two-bed pad with most of the living space in the new roof he had created. Most read in The Sun BCP council cite the main reason for rejecting the applications as flood risk Credit: BNPS The council’s flood expert said the flood risk had increased since Peter bought the garage Credit: BNPS Both attempts were refused by planning officers, with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) council citing the main reason as flood risk. The council’s flood expert, Richard Gazzard, said the developer has had “ample opportunity” to show they have a working water drainage system but have “failed to do so”. He believed the evidence found that drainage changes had actually increased the risk of surface water on neighbouring properties since Peter bought the site. Richard also said the flood warning and evacuation plan was “poorly written” and clearly done “to simply pass planning” and would “likely put occupants at substantial risk of harm”. Colin replied by stating: “This is an emotionally charged and unreasonably complex set of requirements for a simple change of use. “They are not proportional to the development proposed, often straying into detailed design and building regulations territory. “Has the inspector, in their career, witnessed such a high level of scrutiny over an existing soakaway or a flood warning and evacuation plan? “To penalise an existing structural footprint while actively approving large new-build dwellings all around it violates the principles of rational decision-making and reasonableness.” He added that Richard’s statement relied “heavily on emotive language, unverified assumptions, and AI generated misinformation to discredit an existing, functioning drainage system”. “Ignoring the personal attack, which seems wholly inappropriate and disproportionate in the course of a planning appeal, the LLPA officer’s statement does not answer the question asked,” he said. But planning inspector Sylvia Leonard said she agreed with the previous inspectors that the proposal was not suitable due to the flood risk. She said: “I am not persuaded that this would be a safe evacuation option for future occupiers. “I am not satisfied, based on the information before me, that residual risks can be safely managed or that there is an appropriate emergency plan in place that provides for safe access and escape routes. “As such, I cannot be certain that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be safe during a flood event.” Peter and Collin have not responded to requests for comment, and The Sun has reached out to the council. Comment now