A second attempt to get a home approved on a former reservoir at the eastern edge of Dartmoor National Park has been refused because of its “excessive” size.

Dartmoor planners heard the four-bedroom two-storey property at Dunsford Reservoir, Fulford Lane, would be 66 per cent larger than housing standard requirements.

The applicant Mr S Rowe hadn’t offered a contribution towards local affordable housing or accept a local occupancy restriction, said officers.

This would limit who could live in the property to people with connections to the area, ensuring it met local need.

A planning inspector allowed the principle of reusing the redundant reservoir to provide a single home at an appeal last year, but Dartmoor National Park Authority has the final say on the design and size of the building when considering the second stage of the application.

They refused consent in August last year because of the visual impact and conflict with housing policies.

The location is in an elevated position above the village of Dunsford which is about a third of a mile away.

In a report for the authority’s development management committee, planning officers said the current proposal engaged “more positively” with the landscape as it included traditional form and detailing alongside contemporary design solutions, but the size was “significantly in excess of nationally described technical housing standards”.

They said the addition of a new building on top of the existing reservoir would make the site “more perceptible in the landscape”, while glazing would introduce a presence at night which did not currently exist.

Dunsford Parish Council objected because of concerns about its impact on the nearby St Mary’s Church which is Grade I listed and said it would be visible from a number of locations.

Read more: Pine martens expected to be reintroduced on Dartmoor this year 

DNPA member William Dracup said he was in favour of buildings being repurposed and reused, but found it hard to see the merits of the application, given there was no contribution to local housing need.

Mr Rowe said he intended to live in the property himself, having bought the site in 2009.

He claimed it wasn’t mentioned during pre-application discussions with officers that the new building would exceed housing standards.

The proposal was unanimously refused by the committee.

Officers said they would continue to negotiate with the applicant to find a solution for the site.