PLANS to build six new homes following the demolition of industrial buildings at land east of Karma, in Kingsley, have been dismissed at appeal.

The application, by Hartley Wintney-based Ashridge Properties Ltd, was turned down by East Hampshire District Council in January.

The district council felt that, if granted, the proposal would result in new housing “in the countryside outside any settlement policy boundary, in a suburban form of development, to the detriment of the visual amenity and character of the area”.

There were also concerns with “the unjustified loss of an employment site, thereby adversely affecting the range of employment opp-ortunities available in the district”.

Bell Cornwell, chartered town planner in Hook and acting as agent for the applicant, said that “essentially, while the units were currently occupied, they were not on long-term leases and the income was not consistently paid by the tenants”.

Although the application site is located in the “open countryside” in planning policy terms, the applicants claimed it was “far from open countryside” as it was surrounded by residential properties. And as the existing buildings were “in a poor state of repair and give the perception of an inappropriate use in an area dominated by its residential character”, they felt the space would be better occupied by homes.

The applicants also said “there is a compelling argument in favour of the residential redevelopment” as the district council had not sufficiently outlined how it would provide enough housing over the next five years.

These plans had proved emotive particularly for those working at the site.

One employee submitted an anonymous comment to the district council, stating: “As an occupant of one of the units, it is going to be very hard for us to find new premises let alone afford the cost of it. There are four employees including mys-elf, all with mortgages. If we lose this, not only will we lose our business but our homes as well - this is our livelihood.”

Another tenant, David Rudd, proprietor of Liss Fabrications, has been on site for 14 years and objected to the scheme.

“All the industrial buildings are currently occupied by long-term tenants who use skills which are unusual in today’s environment,” he said, in his objection.

“There is a shortage of low-cost industrial buildings within the area for businesses of the type currently operating at the premises.” He feared that if the application was granted “some, possibly even all, of the businesses operating at the site will no longer be economically viable and may be put out of business”.

“That would have the effect of people losing jobs with little prospect of being re-employed and certain skills, such as the ones used at my business, might be lost to this area for ever.”

Tim Wood, the Government inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, upheld the district council’s decision and dismissed the application following the appeal.

Core to his reasons was that there “is no evidence submitted with the appeal which demonstrates that the existing use of the site is not viable”. Mr Wood disagreed with the claim that the district council did not have sufficient housing lined up over the next few years.

“The harm that I have identified arising from the development means that it would not fulfil the economic and environmental roles of sustainable development,” he added.

“In relation to the social role, while it would provide new homes, these would be in an isolated location and there would be no added benefit as no affordable element is provided for. Therefore, taken as a whole, the proposal does not represent sustainable development and there is conflict with the development plan. The appeal is dismissed.”