A DEVELOPER who got permission to build two houses on land next to Highclere on The Street in Binsted lost his bid to build a third property on the site when his appeal was dismissed by the planning inspectorate.

Greg Smith, of St Edmunds Developers Ltd, had his application for three houses on the site turned down by South Downs National Park Authority in February.

In June, he got permission to build two houses while continuing his appeal against the earlier planning refusal.

But in dismissing his appeal, inspector Martin Andrews, who made a site visit in August, said although there was no objection to development on the site, hence permission being granted for two houses, “I consider that the proposal for the three detached dwellings in this appeal would harmfully close the existing gap in the linear development along this part of The Street”.

“The main issues are, therefore, the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, the effect on Cobdens, a nearby Grade II Listed building, in terms of its setting and the living conditions for existing and future occupiers as regards outlook,” he continued.

“The effect on highway safety is also another consideration.”

And he added: “Three dwellings would represent an intensity of built form that would be perceived as excessive for the rural and varied character of the existing street scene.

“The gap between the flanks of the proposed houses is only 2.2 metres in each case and these relatively minimal distances for this rural location would combine with the substantial length of the dwellings to restrict views of the sky and landscape to the rear of the site.

“The effect of this, the overall narrowness of the plots and there being little or no variety in the front building line would mean that the houses would be seen for the most part as a single mass of building.

“Overall, I conclude that the appeal scheme would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of Cobdens, a Grade II Listed building.”

And the inspector concluded: “I have taken account of all the other matters raised for the appellant but have found nothing to alter my conclusions on these two main issues.”