A millionaire couple embroiled in an epic tit-for-tat over who has the biggest mansion have upset neighbours once more with a new plan to build an even bigger home – after their initial proposals were refused. 

This will be determined businessman John Yeoman and his wife Deborah’s third attempt to enlarge their luxury Dorset property overlooking the exclusive Sandbanks peninsula, after their previous two planning applications were turned down. 

The couple’s plans to demolish their luxury harbourside home that was only built 20 years ago and replace it with a bigger one have enraged neighbours, who say the latest designs are the ‘worst’ yet. 

Neighbours fear the Yeomans are being greedy and want to sell the property off as flats, and have called the plans ‘bulky and oppressive’. 

They also accused the Yeomans, who bought their property in the sought-after Elms Avenue in Poole, Dorset, in 2001 for £1.7million, of ignoring the concerns of planning officers and inspectors. 

The couple, whose two children went to the private £30,000-a-year Clayesmore School, demolished the original, traditional house on the plot and replaced it with the £8.8million three-storey home that stands today. 

Then, in 2015, company director Jeremy Gardner bought the modest detached house next door for £2.8million. After getting permission to tear it down, he replaced it with an ultra-modern four-storey mansion. 

That upset the Yeomans, who objected to the plans and said Gardner’s new home would dwarf theirs and ‘ruin the skyline’ of the street. 

Deborah and John Yeoman (pictured), the millionaire couple who are embroiled in a tit-for-tat neighbour row over who has the biggest mansion  

Businessman Jeremy Gardner (pictured) purchased the relatively modest detached property next door for £2.8million in 2015 

Pictured: John Yeoman’s house (centre) and Jeremy Gardner’s house (second from right) in Poole, Dorset

They retaliated by trying to win consent for an even bigger six-storey home, which was refused by the BCP Council. The decision was upheld by a planning inspector when the Yeomans appealed. 

The couple then submitted revised plans for a five-storey house – which were also turned down. 

Now they have submitted new plans for a four-storey property, removing a basement level, but still increasing the increasing the footprint on the upper floors. 

The plans indicate the ground floor would have an open plan living space with a ‘show kitchen’ and a ‘working kitchen’ hidden behind. There would also be a gym, swimming pool complex and snug area. 

The first floor shows an entertainment room with a bar, a home cinema and a large home office, followed by a second floor with three ensuite bedrooms, a ‘private lounge’ and a children’s playroom. 

On the top floor is a large master bedroom suite with a day room, bathroom and dressing room, another two ensuite bedrooms and a master study. 

The plans also show a large garage and boat store. 

Mr Gardner said the new plan was ‘much worse’ than the previous applications. 

The new plans for John and Deborah Yeoman’s three-storey house (left) – which is substantially taller than neighbour Jeremy Gardner’s house (right). Gardner has called the new plan ‘oppressive, overshadowing, and a huge bulk on the skyline

Pictured: Millionaire’s row in Poole Harbour, Dorset

‘The new application is for an even larger building and seems to completely ignore the planning officers’ and appeal inspectors’ reports that refused or dismissed the previous applications’, he said. 

‘The massive bulk of the building extending such a long way at the front towards the road and the extension at the back towards the harbour is oppressive, overshadowing and a huge bulk on the skyline. 

‘The very large balconies that have been introduced on the upper level extend a long way beyond the building line, resulting in overlooking, a loss of privacy and loss of enjoyment of our outside spaces. 

‘There is a clear building line along the Elms Avenue waterfront with all the other homes respecting this. 

‘The proposed building, above the ground storey, should be restricted to the established building line at the front and rear. 

‘The proposal is a massive overdevelopment of the site. 

‘The huge bulk and mass proposed are so out of character with the existing large, detached, single family homes that serious damage to the local area would be caused and this proposal should be refused,’ he added. 

His wife, Iona Gardner, said: ‘The property developers have responded to the refusal of planning permission and the dismissal of their appeal with this new planning application. 

Pictured: an aerial view of the sought-after Elms Avenue, where John Yeoman and Jeremy Gardner are vying to have the biggest home (both homes centre) 

‘It shows a small drop in height and the basement is no longer shown in the drawings submitted. 

‘However, set against this is a very large increase in the floor area and balcony area of the upper levels. 

‘The result of this is a proposal that is much worse than the previous planning application. 

‘Although the height has reduced by around one metre, the size, scale, massing, bulk and site coverage are now much greater. 

‘It is even more prominent than it was before’, she added. ‘Out of place with character and appearance of the area and the harm is much greater than the previous application.’ 

Another neighbour, Michael Riley, said: ‘This application differs from the previous, failed, applications only in that it has increased the size of the above ground building, removed the basement and increased the garaging. 

‘None of which change the fundamental reasons for previous rejection, in that it fails to meet the requirements of the Poole Plan, it remains a dominating feature of the view from the harbour, it will detrimentally change the character of the Elms Estate. 

‘I strongly object to this third attempt to get the plan adopted.’ 

Several residents raised concerns that the plans look like a block of flats and could be turned into flats after approval. 

Local resident Norman Malcolm said: ‘This resubmitted application is still excessive in terms of bulk, mass, scale and site coverage. 

‘The footprint and volume of the structure are significantly bigger than neighbouring properties and even bigger than previously refused applications. 

‘The negative impact on the appearance and character of the local area is therefore as great if not greater than the previous applications. 

‘It’s hard to believe that a structure of this size and design is intended to be used as a single replacement residence.’ 

Another resident, Simon Moore, added: ‘After two appeals being dismissed for smaller schemes, it makes no sense why this application is for an even bigger development and questions if the motivation of this scheme is really for a single family dwelling.’ 

The application has received 20 objections and is awaiting a decision from BCP Council.