Controversial plans to build retirement homes in Upper Clatford have been refused following numerous objections being raised.

DC Li Builders had applied for permission to build the four homes within the village’s conservation area, following on from the rejection of plans to build six homes on the site last year. The plans received 15 letters of objections from residents, as well as a 10-page objection from the parish council.

Following consideration, the plans have now been rejected by Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) on the grounds of impacting on the heritage of the area, as well as “insufficient information” on nitrate neutrality or waste collection for the buildings.

Plans for the latest version of the plans were submitted in March, with four retirement dwellings, as well as parking and landscaping works, proposed for the site at Sam Whites Hill in the village. There would be two two-bedroom units, and two one-bedroom units, across two buildings.

The development would include a “historic” large garden which was to be managed by an external company, who would also be responsible for waste and parking at the site. Further planting of trees at the site would be used to blend the property into the conservation area.

The developers said the plans would have “significant benefits” to the area and that issues on the previous application, including concerns over the impact on conservation and ecology of the area as well as nitrate neutrality had been overcome.

Residents, however, disagreed. Amongst the 15 letters of objection to TVBC included concerns over the plans impact on the Grade II listed Bury Hill Farmhouse, which was built in the 1700s, as well as impact on the environment, such as Pillhill Brook.

The parish council concurred, saying that the application would ‘cause harm’ to the Grade II listed property, and the conservation area more widely, describing the plans as “non-compliant”.

They were also critical of the lack of detail of the applicants in dealing with nitrate neutrality, with the developers saying this would be resolved in future by a legal agreement with the council, and that the developers had said it was “unknown” how sewage would be disposed of.

When it came to a decision, TVBC rejected the plans along broadly similar lines to the previous iteration. Particular note was made of the lack of details over how a proposed private refuse collection scheme would work in reality.

Following the rejection of the application, the developers can choose to appeal the decision, or resubmit the plans in amended form.