PLANS to demolish a house and build a pair of three-bedroomed semi-detached houses in its place with two bungalows in the back garden have been turned down.

The outline planning application for the site in Netherhampton Road was recommended for approval by officers but councillors voted unanimously to refuse it calling it “gross overdevelopment”.

Seven letters of objection were sent in raising concerns over access, parking, overdevelopment and the impact on neighbours.

Salisbury City Council also objected on the grounds of overdevelopment and a lack of parking.

At Thursday’s Southern Area Planning Committee, one neighbour said it would “drastically alter the quiet nature of Tyler’s Close”, a narrow private access way.

Another neighbour said if approved, the plans would result in the loss of amenity and peace of mind of residents living nearby.

An issue raised as part of the application involves the access via Tylers Close which is not owned, or controlled, by the applicant, John Sandford, but by residents living in the close.

John Palmer of Tylers Close said: “We were concerned to see that access to all four properties proposed here are to be from Tylers Close – that is in breach of the covenants and the deeds in place.”

According to Mr Palmer, a deed of easement gives Mr Sandford the right to travel along Tylers Close but only to access one property to be built in the garden in the future.

However, officers said the vehicular access did not form part of the planning decision as it was a matter for the landowners to agree in a private civil matter.

Committee chairman Fred Westmoreland said: “I consider it to be gross overdevelopment. It is a fairly average single plot – to squeeze a semi into it is too tight.”

He added: “What was first conceived was simply another property at the back and that’s not unreasonable. This is way beyond.”

Councillors voted against the plans for reasons of it being cramped overdevelopment and loss of amenity.

In 2007, site plans involving the conversion of the house into five flats with a bungalow in the back garden were refused on overdevelopment grounds.