PLANS to build a 13-storey block of student accommodation in the Lansdowne area of Bournemouth have been refused.

Developer Stonehaven Holdings and Fortitudo said its proposal to redevelop the site next to Telecom House would create a “statement” building in Holdenhurst Road.

But, criticising its scale and design, BCP Council planning officer Charles Raven refused to grant planning permission saying its justification was “not particularly compelling”.

The application was lodged last year and would have seen the existing two-storey building next to Telecom House demolished to make way for the new block.

A statement submitted with the plans said it would have accommodated 408 “units” of student accommodation while the ground floor would remain in commercial use.

“The proposed scale and height of the replacement building will fit comfortably within the context of the existing high-rise development to the north of the site, which includes buildings that are significantly higher than the application proposal,” it said.

“Although the new building will be noticeably higher than the existing development to the south of the site, this is inevitable given that the development to the south side lies outside the designated Tall Buildings Area.

“By virtue of its height and high-quality design, the new building will provide a striking statement building, demarcating the southern edge and approach to the designated Tall Building Area from the town centre.”

The plans included provision for 19 parking spaces.

But planning permission was refused by BCP Council earlier this month due to its “excessive scale”, “overbearing impact” and the “out of character” building leading to a loss of privacy.

In his report rejecting the application, Mr Raven said the “principle of development could be acceptable” but that the building would have been “at odds” with those surrounding the site.

“The applicant has provided a justification as to how they consider the development to meet these [planning] criteria,” his report said. “The arguments provided are not considered particularly compelling.

“The proposed height creates an uncomfortable relationship with the adjacent historic terrace, looming over it with no breathing space between the two.”