Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 3 November 2015
by R J Marshall LLB DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 03 December 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/G1250/W/15/3119217
676-680, Wimboune Road, Hectors House, Bournemouth, BH9 2EG




The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
The appeal is made by ASN Capital Investments Ltd. against the decision of
Bournemouth Borough Council.
The application Ref 7-2015-1919-BM, dated 27 January 2015, was refused by notice
dated 26 March 2015.
The development proposed is Erect 15 Self-Contained Units of Student Accommodation.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Background
2. The application is in outline. However, detailed approval is sought for access,
appearance, layout and scale. Only landscaping is reserved for later
consideration.
3. The application site has been drawn to comprise Hectors House and a car
parking yard at the rear of this property. The site lies to the west of Wimborne
Road, a shopping/commercial street, and just to the north of the access of this
road with the largely residential Jameson Road. Vehicular access to the
parking yard is from Jameson Road and is shared by an adjoining commercial
garage. Hectors House was originally primarily an office building. However, it
has recently been converted into student accommodation on all bar the ground
floor which is partly in a B1 office use and partly in an A3 use.
4. The proposal is to construct a 2-storey block of student accommodation in the
car parking yard attached to Hectors House. This part of the site, to be
developed, is surrounded by development with housing to the north, a YMCA
building to the south and a commercial garage to the west.
Main Issues
5. The main issues in this appeal are: first, the effect of the proposed
development on the living conditions of those in Lampton Gardens to the north
of the site with special reference to visual impact and privacy; and second, it
effect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic in the area.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/G1250/W/15/3119217
Reasons
Living conditions
6. The proposed building would be a lengthy 2-storey high structure with a flat
roof. It would run in a roughly east-west direction with its southern elevation
lying close to the elevation of the adjoining YMCA building. Being in such close
proximity to the adjoining building fenestration in the southern elevation of the
proposed accommodation is very limited. Thus the majority of the windows
would be in the northern elevation and face towards the rear of houses in
Lampton Gardens.
7. The appeal site is relatively small and cramped. As such the proposed building
would, at least in part, due to its angle to the northern boundary, be quite
close to the back of the houses in Lampton Gardens. However, especially with
its 2-storey flat roof design, it would be a sufficient distance from these
properties as to cause no unacceptable harm through visual impact.
8. On privacy the Council relies on its Residential Development A Design Guide
(2008). This seeks to ensure a minimum back-to-back distance between
parallel two-storey buildings (with rear facing windows but no living room
windows on upper floors) of 21 metres. The Council's guidance would appear to
be aimed at preventing an unacceptable loss of privacy arising from first floor
bedroom windows in cases where the rear elevations of dwellings face towards
each other.
9. The circumstances in this case differ slightly from that given above, in that it is
the first floor windows in the front elevation of the proposed development that
would look towards the rear elevations and back gardens of the Lampton
Gardens properties. However, if anything the propensity for unacceptable
overlooking is greater in this case because the first-floor windows looking
towards the neighbouring houses would be to student bed/sitting rooms which
are likely to be occupied to a greater degree than bedrooms alone. I am of this
view notwithstanding that students will also be spending time during the day at
their place of study and may be out some evenings.
10. The westernmost end of the proposed building would, due to the angle at which
it would lie relative to the northern boundary, be sufficiently distant from the
Lampton Gardens properties as to prevent harm though overlooking of these
houses and their gardens. However, rooms in the easternmost section of the
building would be sufficiently within the Council's guideline figure of 21 metres
of the neighbouring houses for such harm to be caused. The angle of the
proposed development to the neighbouring houses would not be so great as to
render such views so oblique as to prevent harm arising. An existing boundary
hedge would not prevent overlooking window to window from this part of the
proposed development. And although it would currently prevent neighbouring
gardens being overlooked this cannot be relied on as there is no guarantee that
it would be retained. For the same reason nor can screening from a boundary
tree be relied on to prevent overlooking. There would be insufficient space for
new planting to provide an acceptable screen and in any event new planting
could not be guaranteed always to remain in situ. In most urban areas some
degree of overlooking is inevitable. However, it should not be to an extent that
would, as in this case, cause a significant and unacceptable loss of privacy.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
2
Appeal Decision APP/G1250/W/15/3119217
11. It is concluded that whilst there would be no harm through visual impact there
would be harm to the living conditions of some of those in Lampton Gardens to
the north of the site with reference to loss of privacy. As such it would be
contrary to saved Policy 5.35 of the Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan
(2002) and Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy (CS)
(2012) which seek to prevent harm to the amenity of adjoining users.
Highway safety/free flow of traffic
12. The Council’s concern on this issue is that the proposed development would
result in the loss of car parking spaces needed for the ground floor of much of
Hectors House and that this in turn would lead to overflow parking on the
highway. The proposed development would occupy a substantial part of the car
parking yard. As a result 18 car parking spaces would be lost. They would be
replaced by a 4 car parking spaces which would be primarily used by those in
the existing office and at the beginning and end of term would be used to
provide parking spaces for parents to drop off and pick up students. This is an
arrangement that the Council finds satisfactory and it does not seek to have
student parking spaces.
13. There would seem to be some acceptance that the existing ground floor office
requires 4 car parking spaces, and as noted above these spaces would be reprovided in the proposed development. However, the parties differ on the
parking provision required for the remaining ground floor of Hectors House.
The appellant says that no spaces are required. It is said that the need for car
parking has been reduced to the 4 to be provided given the change of use of
most of the building to student accommodation. The Council says that 18
spaces are required in total leaving a shortfall of 14 spaces.
14. As far as I can judge the Council’s case is based on what it says is the parking
requirement for that part of the remaining ground floor of Hectors House. The
Council says that this comprises an A3 use recently permitted known as
Gellatos Sprinkles and a vacant retail unit. The appellant claims that there is
no vacant retail unit. The Council has not identified it and I did not see if on my
visit. Thus without further evidence I discount a need to provide parking
provision for this “use”.
15. Turning to the A3 use there is no planning condition on the permission for that
use requiring the provision of parking spaces. However, the property is leased
from the appellant and the Council says that Gellato Sprinkles indicated that
bays provided at the rear would be for staff and referred to 20 staff being at
the premises on the same shift. The Council does not expressly say so but the
implication is that it did not impose a parking requirement as it chose just to
rely on the applicant’s statement and the fact that parking existed at the rear
of the property.
16. The appellant says that Gellato Sprinkles have no rights under their lease for
car parking on the appeal site and that the statement made above should not
have been made. However, I consider that it is necessary to look beyond the
current legal agreement between the appellant and current lessee, and indeed
any previous agreements there may have been, to assess the parking needs of
the ground floor of Hectors House in its permitted use. In light of the above I
judge those to be the 4 parking spaces required for the existing
office/temporary student pickup/drop off, which would be provided for, and the
parking requirement for the A3 premises.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
3
Appeal Decision APP/G1250/W/15/3119217
17. The Council says that 9 parking spaces are required for the A3 unit. This
appears to accord with the guidance in the Council’s Parking Supplementary
Planning Document (2014) on properties of this size and the appellant has
provided no alternative figure. The Council considers that it would be
undesirable for there to be overflow parking from the appeal site onto adjoining
streets. In support of this the Council has provided detailed evidence of the
parking stress the surrounding area, much of which comprises residential roads
with limited off-street parking, is under. This was borne out by what I saw of
the intensively parked up nature of surrounding roads. The Council’s concern
on harm that would arise from overflow parking is, from the evidence given,
well founded. Overflow parking in the areas already under parking stress
would lead to highway danger and interrupt the free flow of traffic.
18. The fact that there may well be other commercial premises in the area with
limited if any parking spaces does not make the proposed development, which
would worsen an already poor position, any better.
19. It is concluded that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect
on highway safety and the free flow of traffic in the area. It would be contrary
to CS Policies CS16 and CS41 on development needing to be in accordance
with the Council’s parking standards and contributing positively to the safety of
the public realm.
Other matters
20. Turning to third-party concerns other than those raised by the Council I
consider the proposed development in terms of its appearance to be entirely
acceptable in its setting close to commercial buildings. Given the substantial
number of student flats already on the site the more limited number of
additional flats proposed should cause no acceptable harm to the living
conditions of those nearby through noise and disturbance. From what I saw the
proposed development would not impinge upon the access to the adjoining
garage in a way which would unacceptably limit its operations. Students
occupying the flats would have a means of pedestrian entry separate from the
vehicular access to the site which would limit conflict between pedestrians and
vehicles. However, lack of harm in these respects does not make the proposal
acceptable given the harm found on the main issues.
21. The appellant says that in favour of the proposed development is the fact that
it would screen a rather unsightly rear wall of the YMCA building from the view
of those in Lampton Gardens. However, any such benefit would not outweigh
the harm found above. The National Policy Planning Framework (the
Framework) has a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The
Framework identifies 3 elements sustainability: economic, social and
environmental roles. Clearly new development that would meet the need for
student accommodation in the area, and reduce the pressure to turn existing
housing into such accommodation, would meet in some degree all of these
roles. It would also thereby meet some development plan objectives.
However, the harm I have found to the environmental role on the 2 main
issues in this appeal I find to be decisive.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
4
Appeal Decision APP/G1250/W/15/3119217
Conclusion
22. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should be
dismissed.
R J Marshall
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
5