Three Carnarvon flats proposed in Bournemouth have been refused on appeal after an Inspector found that the upper-floor accommodation would be cramped and the scheme would provide the wrong housing mix. JJ Packman dismissed the Carnarvon Road appeal on 12th October 2026, leaving the conversion without the planning permission sought.
The end-of-terrace building was shown as an existing flat and five bedsits. The proposal would have created three self-contained one-bedroom flats, one on each floor, with bin and cycle storage in the small rear yard. The works were principally internal, but the quality and type of homes still required assessment.
I would look beyond the headline floor areas here. The Inspector did not treat a modest shortfall against space standards as decisive by itself. The practical ability to use rooms beneath the roof, and a neighbourhood policy seeking a wider choice of home sizes, explain why this proposal failed.
Why the Carnarvon flats needed more than enough floor area
The parties measured the proposed flats differently. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council excluded areas with less than 1.5 metres of headroom, following the nationally described space standard. Packman gave greater weight to that approach. On the council’s figures, two flats would be marginally smaller than the relevant minimum areas.
However, the Inspector took account of the wording of neighbourhood policy BAP7, which encourages compliance with the standard. The numerical shortfall was modest and was not determinative in itself. The decision therefore does not support a simple claim that missing a minimum area by any amount automatically requires refusal.
The greater problem for the Carnarvon flats was how the upper-floor home would work. Its living-room ceiling sloped steeply across a substantial area, limiting comfortable usable space and making ordinary furniture difficult to position. The rear bedroom also had severely restricted height at its entrance, creating awkward access and a constrained environment.
Packman found that these practical limitations were not adequately conveyed by the total floor area. The resulting accommodation would be cramped and, in places, oppressive. That assessment went to everyday living conditions, rather than treating a floor-plan total as a complete description of the home.
The appellant referred to a different appeal at the Horse and Jockey site on Wimborne Road, where non-compliance with the space standard had not resulted in unacceptable accommodation. Packman considered that comparison but explained: “not determined by floor area alone”. The usability of the actual rooms remained central.
Self-contained homes brought benefits, but did not cure the harm
The Carnarvon flats would each have had their own kitchen and bathroom, replacing the existing mix of flat and bedsit accommodation. The Inspector expressly recognised that this would benefit future occupants. It was not a case of overlooking the improvement offered by self-contained facilities.
Those benefits of the Carnarvon flats nevertheless did not overcome the roof-space constraints. Packman found conflict with local and neighbourhood policies concerned with high-quality homes and living conditions. I would want a conversion drawing to demonstrate usable furniture positions and movement through rooms, alongside the accurate measurement of qualifying floor area.
That is a practical reading of this decision, not an extra test invented by the Inspector. The specific problems identified were a steeply sloping living-room ceiling and restricted bedroom access. A different roof arrangement or internal layout would need its own assessment against the policies applying to that property.
The all-one-bedroom mix also failed neighbourhood policy
The Carnarvon flats proposal encountered a separate obstacle under policy BAP6 of the Boscombe and Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan. For developments of nine or fewer dwellings, the decision explains that the policy requires at least one two-bedroom flat with direct access to outside amenity space where available. Its objective is to broaden the local housing stock towards homes with two or more bedrooms.
All three proposed flats would have contained one bedroom. The appellant pointed to demand from smaller households and the site’s convenient access to shops, services and public transport. Packman accepted those advantages, but found they did not explain why the housing mix expressly sought by the policy had been disregarded.
The appellant also challenged the age of the evidence behind the policy. The Inspector acknowledged that it was several years old but found no substantive evidence showing that the objective should receive reduced weight. The policy remained part of the adopted development plan.
Reducing occupation compared with the existing bedsits did not answer that issue either. It would not change the type or mix of homes created. The Inspector distinguished the intensity of occupation from the policy’s aim of securing a broader range of dwelling sizes.
What the appeal means for a similar conversion
The Carnarvon flats appeal acknowledged the council’s inability to demonstrate a five-year housing-land supply, the accessible location and economic and environmental benefits. Packman nevertheless concluded that the scheme’s benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. Planning policy support for housing did not remove the need for acceptable accommodation and an appropriate mix.
For a similar purchase or conversion, I would check the neighbourhood plan before assuming that three smaller flats will be acceptable because the building already contains several bedsits. The complete official decision, appeal 6011814 and application P/26/01293/FUL, records both reasons for dismissal. Our change-of-use guide provides the wider planning background, while this outcome remains specific to the submitted conversion.
0 Comments