Plans for a four-bed family home near the Port of Southampton have been dismissed on appeal.

A planning inspector said the scheme would cause harm to a listed building and conservation area.

The proposal was also assessed as being unable to provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers.

The 'city garden' in Platform Road near Admiralty House, Southampton.READ MORE: Hamble quarry plans are refused - the full reaction

The appeal to the planning inspectorate for the development in Platform Road on land to the west of Admiralty House was submitted in January.

This was after Southampton City Council planning officers rejected the application in May last year.

Permission was sought for a detached four-bedroom dwelling with a roof garden on the site.

The land was previously a disused car park before the applicants bought it and the area was converted into a ‘city garden’.

A statement submitted as part of the application said the self-build house would have “modern energy-saving devices”.

“Since the pandemic, the applicants have been working from home and this proposal has home working areas integrated into the design,” the statement said.

“The application does not require car parking. When the applicants venture out it will be via walking/cycling/e-bike or using existing established and available bus services on their doorstep.”

It added that the design was contemporary to “compliment, enhance and successfully contrast with the historic architecture of Admiralty House”, which is a grade II-listed building.

In her published appeal decision, planning inspector Juliet Rogers said: “I have found that the proposed development harms the character and appearance of the Canute Road Conservation Area and the special interest/significance of the setting of Admiralty House.”

On the subject of living conditions, Ms Rogers said there were issues with a noise assessment submitted by the applicant.

This included who carried out this assessment, whether the mobile phone application used in the survey was sufficiently accurate and a lack of justification for dates when noise readings were taken.

The inspector also raised concerns over the potential activities that could come forward at the port through permitted development rights and the impact this would have on the proposed house.

Ms Rogers said there would not be satisfactory living conditions in the future in relation to noise, daylight, outlook and the operation of the port.

She commended the appellant for their approach in wanting to adopt a “self-sufficient living environment and lifestyle”.

A separate costs application submitted against the city council was refused.

The planning inspector said there had not been any unreasonable behaviour by the local authority resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense.