Plans to create a development of custom and self-build housing on the edge of Petersfield have been scrapped in favour of an 85-home estate.

Work will soon begin on the town’s biggest new housing development for around a decade as Dandara has been granted approval to build north of Buckmore Farm.

The scheme was approved this morning by the South Downs National Park Authority with only two members not backing the plans at the meeting in Midhurst.

But although the “high quality” proposals include an above average 45 per cent affordable housing, it could mean the end of a dream for local people who fancied building their own property.

The site between Bell Hill and the A3 was allocated for custom and self-build housing in the Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan back in 2016 but this aspiration never became a reality.

The applicants claimed that only one person had shown an interest in building a custom home on the site, so they put forward an alternative scheme.

There was some consternation as the outline application that was previously approved was for self-build housing, whereas the full application proposed a mix of market and affordable housing.

Gripes with access, planting and open space provision were also raised during the hearing.

Petersfield town councillor, Anne Stephenson, said the “piecemeal approach” shown by the developers had resulted in a “significant deviation” from the neighbourhood plan while Cllr Jamie Matthews queried the efforts made to contact would-be self-builders.

He said: “The PNP set this site for self and custom building for people with a local connection.

“There has only been one expression of interest in self-build on this site but there is no way to corroborate that.”

Members heard the application could not be rejected because a different type of housing has been proposed, as the land is allocated for residential development.

And there was plenty of support for the scheme with James Taylor, speaking on behalf of Dandara, calling the scheme “unmistakably Petersfield”.

“A deep understanding of Petersfield’s character has guided every decision,” he said, adding there had been a “clear lack of demand” for self-build housing on the site.

Member Alun Alesbury called the scheme “really pleasing” while Paul Bevan also spoke in support of the recommendation for approval.

He said: “This is a huge improvement on the scheme we considered in April and I think the officers working on this application have done a wonderful job.”

“I think the site is too big to be custom or self-build,” said Daniel Stewart-Roberts in agreeing with the move to consider market and affordable housing for the site.

“There’s no appetite, despite what you hear. I think it’s an aspiration, as opposed to ‘it must happen’ here.”

Mr Stewart-Roberts and others did have some concerns with drainage on the site as he called parts a “swamp” following a previous site visit.

But members heard that SNDPA planning officers are happy with drainage arrangements, with Mr Alesbury reminding the committee it’s not their job to “redesign schemes”.