Developer Stephen Rendle has twice-attempted to get planning permission for the ‘modern’ home and has been refused both times on the grounds the design was out-of-character and “inappropriate” for the area.

Government planning inspector Bhupinder Thandi threw out the appeal not because it would be out of character but because it would be disruptive for neighbours.

“The proposed development would be notably different in appearance compared to neighbouring properties and would sit in a smaller plot,” the report said. “However, taking into account the varied nature of Waverly Street the proposed development would not unduly harm the character and appearance of the area.”

The inspector added that the home would be “visually intrusive and overbearing” for neighbours that would create “a sense of enclosure that would severely diminish the living conditions of existing occupiers in terms of loss of light and outlook.”

But the rejection comes despite the council allowing a building of a similar design to be built around 300 metres away in Diglis Lane.

Mr Rendle, of Droitwich-based Wentworth Restoration and Construction, appealed to the government planning inspectorate after council planners rejected his application in January.

He had reduced the size of the building by one storey, after an initial plan was rejected the previous May.

One neighbour had raised an objection to both plans saying she would feel “hemmed in” by the new home. “Despite the revised plans for this dwelling there will still be a feeling of being hemmed which will create a big problem for us in our property,” the neighbour in Cavendish Street said.

Council planners said the ‘cramped and contrived’ home would be overdevelopment of the land as well as overbearing and would result in neighbours losing privacy.

Planners also said the design of the home was “wholly incongruous” with the rest of the buildings in the street and would be “uncomfortably oppressive” for neighbours.

“In the opinion of the local planning authority the erection of a dwelling on the site as proposed would constitute inappropriate overdevelopment of the site that would also unacceptably compromise the established character and appearance of the site and surrounding area and standards of residential amenity for both the neighbouring residents and future residents,” a report outlining the council’s rejection said.