The construction of a single house will be determined by a planning committee after its proposal proved controversial enough to generate more than 40 letters of objection.

Described as a “sustainable self-build dwelling”, the home would be built on land south of 92 High Street in Chapmanslade, where the existing stables would be demolished.

The parish council has commented it is “frustrated by the rolling round of updates which continue to make this application difficult to judge”, referring to the fact that this is the applicant's third version of the plans.

SEE ALSO: Billionaire 'could be liable to enforcement action' from Wiltshire Council

The proposed home.The proposed home. (Image: Oakwrights) According to the application, the “only real views of the site are either within the applicant's land or longer-range views from the fields across the valley to the south and glimpses from the west”.

However, the objectors have raised concerns that the house would be “too large for the site” and “would have a detrimental and harmful impact that would not be sympathetic to the location’s special character and local distinctiveness”.

Other concerns included the planned access to the site and highway safety.

One resident commented: “This is the worst planning application I have ever seen in its amateurish substandard application.”

Another wrote that “intensification” of the use of the narrow lane could lead to “injury of residents or highway users”.

However, the case officer report which will be presented to councillors at the western area planning committee meeting on Wednesday, November 6, recommends approval of the application.

It states: “The principle of development merits full support and represents an efficient and effective re-use of land providing sustainable windfall development.”

It also notes the provision of construction jobs for the scheme and describes the design as “high quality with the applicant being committed to providing a very energy efficient building”.

It concludes: “There are no substantive adverse impacts that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh these stated benefits.”

The application itself argued: “We would suggest that a single new house here would not add any significant load onto local resources, and even if there were some minor impacts, this would be outweighed by the benefits of an additional family home built to modern sustainability and energy efficiency standards helping promote long term choice for the village.

“The applicants taking an active part in village life and building their own home will free up 96 High Street for new or upscaling residents who are likely to use and help bolster local businesses and facilities.”