"GARDEN-GRAB" developers are setting out to destroy the historic market town of Petersfield, it was claimed this week. Angry protesters are fighting plans to pull down two homes in Buckmore Avenue and replace them with a "mini housing estate". And they are calling on East Hampshire MP Michael Mates to support legislation which would outlaw what they see as unacceptable development. In a letter to Mr Mates this week, the chairman of the Buckmore Avenue Residents' Association, Nevill Brook, told him: "We felt that you should be aware of the unrest and anger that is building up in your constituency - we need your urgent help and support therefore to keep ruthless 'garden grab' developers from destroying our town which is likely to be at the centre of the proposed South Downs National Park." Kebbell Homes made two applications to demolish numbers two and four Buckmore Avenue before Christmas. The first was to replace the homes with six detached houses, and the second was to put two blocks up, each containing six two-bedroom flats. Both applications were thrown out by East Hampshire district councillors, and both are now the subject of appeals to a government planning inspector. Now objectors are facing a third application from Kebbell Homes, this time for five detached houses, after ripping down the two houses. And on Tuesday night angry residents filled Petersfield Town Council's debating chamber to voice their strong objections yet again. Speaking on behalf of many objectors, Paul Farley slammed what he called "underhanded garden-grabbing tactics". He told councillors the new plans were: "totally out of character with the semi-rural nature of this location. The siting of the proposed houses is only possible due to the significant breaching of the existing building line." He said a tight courtyard arrangement was proposed that was alien to Buckmore Avenue. "The site would be transformed to one where the built form would dominate and give a continuous density of brick visibility around the whole site," he said. Mr Farley added that, disturbingly, the proposal did not show the footprint of the existing homes: "hiding the fact that the building line would be encroached, nor does it show a tree presentation order that would prevent a garage being built". There was a bat roost in the Buckmore Avenue area, said Mr Farley. Bats were a protected species and a survey would have to be carried out before planning permission was granted. In addition, he said, a 2.4-metre-wide access was shown on the plan, when the minimum required was 3.5 metres as well as pavements and visibility splays. "This implies that a good chunk of hedge would be damaged or removed. Their statement that they would retain as much hedge as possible is clearly misleading," he said. Mr Farley told the meeting Buckmore Avenue was dominated by its magnificent beech hedges and discreet entrances. "This proposed development would be highly visible due to the widening of the entrance to number four. A significant amount of the hedge would be lost or damaged, thus fundamentally altering the street scene and the amenity of the residents." Planning guidelines for housing density stated that higher numbers should be considered against particular residential areas and respect their character. Mr Farley asked if this had been done in the Buckmore Avenue case. "Buckmore Avenue as a narrow street will be turned into a traffic jam as the inevitable overflow of cars will be parked there," said Mr Farley. "This will result in danger for pedestrians and inconvenience on the public highway." Town councillors backed the residents' views, saying they could see no difference between the new plan and the previous plan for six detached houses, to which they had strongly objected. They are recommending that the plan be thrown out on the grounds of the loss of two substantial buildings in a particularly attractive area, increased traffic on the narrow road, the destruction of hedges and loss of trees, the narrow entrance to the proposed development, overdevelopment of the site, and the fact the roads would have to be restructured.