The rejection of a planning application for an elderly care home in Surbiton should discourage "garden grabbers", according to the Southborough Residents' Association.

Sunrise Senior Living amended its application for a care home in the Southborough conservation area, after its original plan for a home was rejected on the grounds of overdevelopment. It reduced the building by a storey to three storeys, but its plans to demolish four homes in Lovelace Road and Brighton Road remained the same.

Councillors rejected the application at a planning meeting on Wednesday, April 4, after a council report showed that the plan for 74 rooms for up to 100 people was over the council's density limit for the area.

The report acknowledged the existence of other care homes in the area but stated that these were suited to the style and character of the area.

A spokeswoman for the residents' association, which opposed both applications, said: "Residents felt most strongly that it would drastically change the residential character of the area, and that it was far too large.

"They were also against demolishing four perfectly good homes, which would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging more developers to garden grab' and irrevocably change the character of Southborough."

q Visit surreycomet.co.uk.The rejection of a planning application for an elderly care home in Surbiton should discourage "garden grabbers", according to the Southborough Residents' Association.

Sunrise Senior Living amended its application for a care home in the Southborough conservation area, after its original plan for a home was rejected on the grounds of overdevelopment. It reduced the building by a storey to three storeys, but its plans to demolish four homes in Lovelace Road and Brighton Road remained the same.

Councillors rejected the application at a planning meeting on Wednesday, April 4, after a council report showed that the plan for 74 rooms for up to 100 people was over the council's density limit for the area.

The report acknowledged the existence of other care homes in the area but stated that these were suited to the style and character of the area.

A spokeswoman for the residents' association, which opposed both applications, said: "Residents felt most strongly that it would drastically change the residential character of the area, and that it was far too large.

"They were also against demolishing four perfectly good homes, which would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging more developers to garden grab' and irrevocably change the character of Southborough."