An appeal against a council’s refusal of plans for a five-storey building near a railway station has been thrown out.

Bridgewater Investments Limited launched the appeal after Wealden District Council rejected its plans to build the apartment block on the car park adjoining Polegate railway station.

The block would have been made up of 36 apartments on the upper floors and parking and servicing on the ground floor.

Wealden District Council rejected the plans because of the impact the “incongruous and harmful” development would have on the character of the area and the lack of affordable housing provision within the plans, which attracted much opposition.

There were concerns about how the loss of the car park would affect businesses in the town and the possibility that the new block would exacerbate antisocial behaviour in the area.

Polegate Town Council was one of the objectors to the scheme.

“It would be harmful to local business to approve this application,” Polegate Town Council clerk Jo Tricker said.

“There were concerns that locating a housing building in the middle of a car park would create potential antisocial behaviour risks and pollution risks to residents in that property.

“There were concerns over the potential to create a crime location where it didn’t exist currently.”

Another objector said the development would be an “absolute disaster” for Polegate.

Lewis and Co Planning, on behalf of Bridgewater, said the development had been designed “sensitively with full consideration of context and the character of the immediate environment”.

“There is no strong sense of place around Polegate station, or over-riding style,” the company wrote in appeal documents.

“One could conclude that it lacks local distinctiveness, as these types of buildings could be found in any town centre in England. There are no particularly “locally distinctive” buildings or spaces in this locality.”

But planning inspector Conor Rafferty sided with Wealden District Council and upheld the rejection.

He said the building would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and described the design as “jarring”.

“The proposal would be a sizeable and prominent structure at the site, notable particularly due to its imposing five-storey height,” he said.

“While it would be set back from neighbouring buildings and feature a recessed upper level of different materials, it would nevertheless be an incongruous addition experienced among the immediate and wider structures in this part of Polegate.

“Overall, it would be an unduly dominant and out of place building that would read as visually jarring. While the appellant alleges a lack of local distinctiveness, it remains that the proposal would fail to reflect or respect the characteristic lower level of development that prevails in the area. In the context of the appeal site and its environs it would, due to its overall incongruous height, fail to represent good design.”