A “fantasy land” application to build 52 flats with 10 parking spaces has been rejected by planning officials.

The scheme had been set for an estate already overcrowded with parked cars - a problem that contributed to several objections from neighbours.

They also feared overlooking from the seven-storey block and said the appearance and scale of the development was unacceptable.

The scheme had been set for waste ground in Malvern Road but Dover District Council’s rejection caused elation among locals.

One commenter on the Facebook page Clarendon and Westbury Community Association said: “Fantastic outcome, somebody at last has got some common sense, well done all those who opposed the plan.”

Another simply said: “Fab news.”

DDC announced its decision on May 17.

It was decided by officers’ delegated powers rather than by the planning committee, which happens in 90% of applications.

A total of 43 residents sent objections to the council’s planning portal and none expressed support.

One local, Matthew Vine, of nearby Clarendon Street, said: “A proposal for 52 flats requiring only 10 parking spots is fantasy land."

Justin Basquez, from the same street, said so many spaces were already taken that some drivers had to park on double-yellow lines.

Dover Town Council in its written submission said: “The density of the development is inappropriate especially due to the poor provision of parking.”

“Fantastic outcome, somebody at last has got some common sense…”

District officers said that Kent County Council’s highways department was satisfied with the amount of parking provided because the flats would be a short walk to shops, bus stops and Dover Priory station.

But they rejected the outline application because they felt the scale, form and design of the block appeared to be dominant, not in keeping with the area and not visually attractive.

They also feared it would cause loss of privacy and overlooking for neighbouring properties.

The application was by David Andrew of London and he had also argued that most of the new tenants would not need cars because of the flats’ closeness to public transport and the town centre.

To justify the lower number of spaces it was also argued that 38 of the 52 flats would be one-bedroomed or studio apartments.