REVISED plans for a hillside home at Martinstown have failed to find favour with council planners – or neighbours.

Changes to the original design, which it is claimed would have less impact, still brought local objections.

Outline planning consent, establishing the principle of building on the site, has already been granted for the detached property, off Grove Hill, on a site uphill from Hardy Close.

The detailed designs for what was described as “an exceptional, appropriate and sustainable family home” for Mr and Mrs Gerald and Rosie Duke have now been rejected as “an incongruous and bulky addition” to the landscape.

The application said that the building would be set back into the hillside, with an earth embankment around it, would be environmentally friendly and “respect the character and appearance of its location in Martinstown.”

Mr Duke, a former local councillor, had written to Dorset Council, in detail, to refute the claims made by Winterborne St Martin parish council in their statement on the revised plans for the site.

The parish claimed that the building would spoil the views of nearby houses and would look out of place adjacent to a public footpath and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, now known as a National Landscape. It said the detailed application had been quite different from the designs put forward at the outline planning stage, although it welcomed the removal of a second two-storey building from the plans and the inclusion of different materials than originally proposed.

“The content of the reserved matters application was quite unexpected; increased house height, hard modern lines, prefabricated construction panels, broad roof overhangs, sheet metal roof, walls of glass, large outbuildings, and a choice of materials which in no part reflect the local vernacular. The development as currently proposed will be a detriment to the AONB, the village Conservation Area and adjacent residents,” said the parish.

One Hardy Close resident wrote to tell Dorset Council that there was no need for a property of its size on a farmland site, overlooking the village.

“Whilst it is encouraging to see the removal of the garage which mitigates to some extent the unfortunate impact of placing this house on farmland at Grove Hill, the overall effect of sighting this property above the village at this imposing and prominent position facing down on the church remains disappointing. The photographs and illustrations provided do not do justice to the reality of its effect on neighbours.”

A planning case officer report concluded that, given the distance between the proposed building and Hardy Close there would be no harm from overlooking.

Said the officer: “The proposal would however result in the construction of a relatively bulky two storey building on the boundary of the site. In spite of the significant excavation that is proposed to accommodate the building it would still sit a considerable distance above those properties to the north…  Even taking into consideration the distance from those properties the levels difference is such that the building would appear to loom over those properties, creating an oppressive environment.

“The degree of excavation and the design of the building would combine to form a building which would be a significant departure from the established character of this chalk hillside landscape. In this regard it is considered that the proposal would result in harm to the character, special qualities and natural beauty of the National Landscape (AoNB)… “The proposed scheme is considered to represent an incongruous and bulky addition which fails to adequately reflect the characteristics of the site and the local area, instead imposing itself on the site through extensive excavation.”

Mr Duke said that he did not wish to comment on the latest planning rejection and was not prepared to say if he would to go to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate over the refusal.