Second refusal by BCP Council for six homes in Glenville Road, Walkford

A PROPOSAL for six homes across three plots in Walkford has been rejected for the second time.

An identical application for 84 Glenville Road site was previously turned down by BCP Council, writes Trevor Bevins of the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

One neighbour described the application as "greedy" and "garden grabbing" which he said was typical of what had been happening in the area over recent years.

At a meeting of the planning committee, Christchurch councillor Lesley Dedman argued for the application to be rejected, claiming it would be detrimental to bats which forage in the area and slow worms living on the site, which are both protected species.

She said proposals to move the creatures could prove fatal for them.

Cllr Dedman was also critical of the additional traffic the scheme would bring to the area which she said was already congested.

She claimed the noise from the rail line at the bottom of the garden was likely to be unacceptable for new occupants of the new homes.

The application asked for the demolition of number 84 at the front of the site to be replaced by a detached home, and to use parts of gardens of numbers 80 and 82 to build two pairs of semi-detached properties and a second detached house.

All were said to be similar design to other properties in the area.

An identical application was previously rejected by BCP Council and then went to appeal, but was also turned down.

However, although the planning inspector sided with the council, most of its reasons were not accepted.

Cllr Tony Trent said the amount of housing planned for the site was too damaging for the biodiversity of the plots and was almost certain to lead to a loss of species.

But Cllr Toby Johnson said he did not believe parking was a significant issue not that the concerns about biodiversity were strong enough to reject the scheme.

He said: “I don’t think we would survive an appeal if we refused this,” – a view shared by committee chair Cllr David Kelsey.

Planning officers recommended approval of the latest scheme, but a majority of the committee rejected it, citing inadequate parking and nature mitigation.