DEFERRED plans to demolish a Bournemouth home and replace it with a block of flats are set to return to BCP Council’s planning committee this week.

Concerns about the siting of a bin and cycle store prompted councillors to delay deciding on the Clarendon Road scheme at a meeting in June, saying they were "minded to" approve it should changes be made.

Clarendon Homes has now altered the design of its block of eight flats in a bid to overcome concerns, although planning officers have again recommended that the application be refused.

The plans seek permission for the house to be demolished so that a three-storey block of eight flats can be built in its place.

In a statement submitted with its application, the developer said the replacement building was “in all respects, compatible with the surroundings”.

However, 21 people wrote in objection to the plans and they were also opposed by council planning officers.

Strath Davis, who lives in the adjoining Portarlington Road, said: “To construct a block of flats in this location would necessitate the destruction of certain trees and open space which is precisely why we choose to live here and pay high rents and council tax.

“We do not wish to see the character of our community altered from this lovely house to an ugly block of flats.”

Despite this, when councillors first considered the application in June, they said they were “minded to” approve it subject to the design of the bin and cycle store to be changed.

Since then, Clarendon Homes has made the path linking the building to the road wider and split the store into two blocks.

Councillors will now reconsider the scheme at this week’s meeting.

But council planning officer Tom Hubbard has still recommended that the application be refused when it goes back to the committee on Thursday (September 5).

“The proposal provides residential development in a sustainable location and the eight flats will contribute towards local housing supply,” his report says.

“However, there are significant concerns in terms of the loss of the existing positively-contributing dwelling and the fact the replacement would be overly large and weaker in design terms.

“The significant loss of trees and vegetation will also be detrimental to the site’s character.”