World's ‘most expensive bungalow' is being DEMOLISHED in UK seaside beauty spot after two-year battle

The Sun

18-07-2025

AN ENTREPRENEUR who spent £13.5 million on the "worlds most expensive" bungalow has been given the greenlight to demolish it.
Tom Glanfield, 46, bought the property on Dorset's exclusive Sandbanks Resort, described as a millionaire's row, in March 2023.
7
7
He had planned to knock down the cottage and replace it with a modern family home.
Planners had other ideas however and recommended his application be refused.
They claimed that it would "result in the total loss of the non-designated heritage asset."
Planners also believed that it would cause "significant harm" to the Sandbanks Conservation Area.
Mr Glanfield, who lives in Poole, Dorset, said that the current house was no longer "fit for purpose."
He claims he designed a family home that was "sympathetic to the beautiful surroundings of the conservation area."
During a meeting with planners today, July 18, Mr Glanfield had a breakthrough after insisting he was "not a property developer" and was not " flipping the bungalow for profit."
He said: "I'm not a property developer looking to put in a big block of flats here. I'm not flipping this for profit.
"I am very much a family man who is trying to make a family home. I will probably die in that home.
"I care deeply about the environment. I have a renewable energy recruitment firm that I built from scratch.
"This property is currently energy rated F. It would become energy rated A.
"The house's current state also isn't good. I don't allow my kids down to the harbour wall because it is dangerous.
"Instead, I am creating a living sea wall at great expense. I won't even see that from the property - it's all for public benefit.
"So the proposal would improve the environment.
7
7
7
"Currently, the property looks out of place. On either side of it you have flat-roof modern houses.
"And in my opinion the property isn't of any heritage significance - it was the servant quarters to the main house which has since been demolished.
"It's been altered significantly over the years with permitted developments and extensions.
"It's time for it to be developed. You actually all have an opportunity with me, without sounding arrogant, in that I've got the time, energy, and money to make this something you can all be proud of.
"So I really hope you grant it."
Planners took his words on board and granted him the permission he had sought for two long years.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCPC) officers granted Mr Glanfields proposal by seven to one.
Many said they did not consider the current property as a "heritage asset" - adding that, if it was, it was of "very limited value."
Others said the loss of the heritage asset would be justified as the "benefits outweigh."
One councillor listed the benefits of Mr Glanfield's proposal as: "Energy efficiency, ecological benefits provided by the living sea wall, bringing the property back into local use, and a design that is more sympathetic to the environment than what is currently there."
Mr Glanfield now hopes to transform the bungalow, dubbed the "world's most expensive" into a sustainable two-storey family home.
He said that the property currently suffered with a leaking roof, mould and mildew.
The new-build, the entrepreneur says, will be complete with renewable power and a desalination facility - and will see the sea wall, which is currently "unsafe", "unsightly", and crumbling, enhanced and restructured.
7
7
He previously said: "My dream is to build a family home that will not only retain the modest beauty of the plot but will also stand the test of time."
Mr Glanfield received significant backing for his proposal from the local community - with 38 letters of support submitted to the council.
Among those was one from neighbour Ros Smart, who labelled the plans as an "outstandingly innovative design for an iconic site."
She continued: "The modern sleek appearance is entirely in keeping with houses in the surrounding area and is totally suitable for the conservation area."
Others agreed that the design was "sympathetic" to the location - describing the "modern sleek appearance" as "entirely in keeping with houses in the surrounding area".
Planners however argued that the proposal should be refused on "conservation grounds" and said alternative options "involving the retention of the cottage" could have been explored.
Planning officer Babatunde Aregbesola told the meeting that the existing building was considered very important to the Sandbanks Conservation Area (CA) given its age, which he described as "very early Edwardian, one of the oldest in the area."
He said: "The proposal by reason of the demolition of the existing cottage would result in the total loss of the non-designated heritage asset causing significant harm and failing to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Sandbanks Conservation Area."
He also argued that the benefits proposed by Mr Glanfield do not outweigh the harm.
He said: "The applicant, via legal representation, identifies the following public benefits: visual and environmental enhancements from a proposed sea wall and landscaping; design choices including use of local materials and a sedum roof; and improved energy efficiency (F to A rated).
"But while the scheme would deliver a more energy efficient home and some economic activity, it would replace an existing, habitable dwelling and would not increase housing supply.
"The reduced flood risk benefits are private in nature. These benefits are modest and do not outweigh the identified heritage harm "The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its significance.
"The proposal would also cause harm to non-designated heritage assets which adds further substantial weight against the development.
"In conclusion, the development conflicts with the relevant policies and lacks sufficient public benefit to justify the harm.
"The application should therefore be refused."
Following Mr Glanfield's speech however, one councillor told the meeting: "The house itself as it stands is not particularly special, charming or dynamic. It's just an ordinary house.
"But what is being proposed is a special, ecologically designed property that is going to enhance the area and make a huge difference to what the Conservation Area looks like.
"I can't support the officer's recommendation [to refuse the application]."
Another said: "I'm struggling to see how this is a heritage asset. Let these people build the home they want and have a positive impact on the surrounding area."
He will now be able to push ahead with his new family home.
The Sun has contacted BCPC and planners for comment.
Do I need planning permission to convert my shed?
CONVERTING an existing shed or outbuilding into a self-contained living space will usually require you apply for planning permission.
However, there is a "loophole" Brits can use to convert outbuildings into a tiny home without permission.
Planning expert Martin Gaine from Just Planning warned the conversion process is far easier than you may think.
Speaking to The Sun, the Chartered Town Planner of 14 years' experience explained: " An outbuilding can be built using 'permitted development rights ', meaning it does not need planning permission.
"As long as you comply with the various restrictions and conditions."
One of these is that the outbuilding can only be used for something 'ancillary' to your main living accommodation - examples include storage, a gym or a pool room.
If the outbuilding is existing, converting it then into primary living accommodation IS allowed.
Martin explained: "This is because internal changes to an existing building are not considered to be development at all under the Town and Country Planning Act.
But like anything, there is one catch.
The new living accommodation must still have some connection with your use of the main house.
For instance, if your gran is living out there, she must still come into the house to eat.