OBJECTORS packed Petersfield Town Council debating chamber on Tuesday night to voice their anger at plans they claimed would wipe out the special character of the area. More than 30 home owners from Buckmore Avenue crowded into the town hall to register their anger at plans to demolish numbers 2 and 4 Buckmore Avenue and replace them with two two-storey blocks containing a total of 12 flats. The plan, submitted by Kebbell Homes, is for outline permission and does not contain any detail of design, but residents said it would "set a dangerous precedent" that would blow away the character of the street. And members of the town council's planning committee gave protesters their whole- hearted support. Making strong objections to the plan, they said it was an outrageous proposal which, if allowed, would set a precedent and ruin the town. Speaking on behalf of residents of Buckmore Avenue, Woodbury Avenue Residents' Association and the Petersfield Society, Mark Cooper told town councillors: "All the things that the council has been keen to protect in the past to ensure the character of the road and the amenity of the residents is maintained, would be blown away (if the plan was allowed). "Such things as the beech hedges, the trees, the building line and the structure and layout of the street will be lost forever and will diminish the unimposing character of the street." "Buckmore Avenue is a great place to live and none of us want to see it ruined," he told town councillors. Mr Cooper claimed East Hampshire District Council seemed unwilling to protect the character of Petersfield by advocating high density development. On this basis, he claimed: "Petersfield will no longer have the attractive traditional family roads and houses of the pre and post-war era, but blocks of flats thrown up by developers in the distorted application of a piece of planning policy (PPG3). There was no evidence, claimed Mr Cooper, that an appraisal to test whether the Woodbury Avenue site was suitable for higher density development and he stressed that the policy did not advocate high density on all sites, but was aimed more at major urban areas. "The flats are clearly not in keeping with the area," he claimed, adding that they would, "dominate Buckmore Avenue, Bell Hill and the recreation ground". One proposed block was twice the size of the house it would replace, he claimed, and the second block was two-and-a-half times the size of the other house which would be demolished. "As you drive up Bell Hill and walk through the recreation ground, the proposed buildings will dominate what was once a nice open space on the edge of town." Mr Cooper said he was further concerned about parking and access in Buckmore Avenue. "It already suffers from commuters who park in it to use the station. With little additional parking spaces on the proposed developments, all additional cars will have to park in Buckmore Avenue." He said access out on to Bell Hill was also an issue, as there was a blind bend in the road which had already led to a number of accidents. "Such developments could have a major impact on the town's character and setting with traditional family houses being demolished and replaced by flats across Petersfield." He urged: "Petersfield Town Council must draw the line." Mary Vincent told fellow councillors she believed the plan was out of keeping with the area: "I am very concerned about the extra traffic which would be generated, the difficulty of parking and the precedent it would set. This is the thin end of the wedge." Chris Jenner echoed her sentiments telling the meeting: "PPG3 (the government's guidelines on density of housing) are going to ruin our town. It doesn't have to be followed religiously everywhere. As ward councillor, I urge us to reject this in the strongest possible terms." Ken Hick added: "Anybody who knows Buckmore Avenue can only view this proposal as outrageous." Chairman of the committee Paul Molloy thanked the residents for turning out in force to air their views. "If all residents in the town of Petersfield felt the same way as you and took the action you have, if would make our lives easier in protecting this town from the overdevelopment that councillors have talked about," said Mr Molloy. Councillors objected to the plan on the grounds that it would create an unacceptable intensification of the area, it would represent overdevelopment of the sites, there was inadequate land on the site for parking and not enough parking and manoeuvring space. They also objected on the grounds that the plan would bring an increase in traffic at a sub standard junction, represent backland development and harm the appearance of the street scene and be detrimental to existing homes.