Councillors have blocked a plan to build three luxury homes on a car park site over concerns for trees on the land.

The scheme on the St Margarets Business Centre was recommended for approval by the council's planning officials.

However, councillors ruled against amid concerns it would involve felling four out of 11 trees, including three which carry protection orders.

The decision was made despite an assurance from the developers, Sheen Lane Developments, which would see the planting of six new trees.

The committee voted eight to one against granting planning permission and so save what are known locally as the GodWin trees.

More than 130 letters of objection were lodged with the council, arguing it would rob locals, including children, of a green place to congregate, while harming wildlife.

The scheme on the St Margarets Business Centre was recommended for approval by the council's planning officials.

They pointed out that the planning permission for the park, granted in 1982, included a condition requiring the developer to plant trees and shrubs to improve its appearance.

One resident pointed out that the council's own policies state that they should protect existing trees.

An emotional local, Tony Wilkinson, argued that residents 'love' the trees, including a 'beautiful, magic fairy tree' on one spot.

He insisted the area should be protected against the building of 'three rabbit hutches', describing them as 'brutalist', 'ugly' and an 'eyesore'.

Mr Wilkinson told councillors: "I am here to reflect the views of hundreds of local residents…to save the GodWin trees.

"We want them – the trees – all saved along with the biodiversity they bring to our neighbourhood."

His voice wavering, he said: "Excuse my emotion but I feel very emotional about this issue, as do most of the local residents. And I feel I am carrying it into the room to show you how much we care."

An earlier planning application for four houses on the site was rejected by the Council and a subsequent planning appeal on the grounds – partly – of the need to protect the trees.

Cllr Alexander Ehmann, who represents the area involved in the scheme, accused the developers of failing to engage with the local community.

He questioned the modern design of the homes saying it is 'incongruous' compared to the existing Victorian and Edwardian streets.

Cllr Ehmann said the loss of the trees, which had been recognised by a planning inspector as a valuable 'visual amenity', would be a heavy blow to the community.

"They are an effective ecosystem that support one another, and visually they have a combined impact," he said.

He said it should be possible to develop and improve the site, perhaps by constructing one or two properties, 'but without touching the bark of a single tree'.

The leader of the Green party on the Council, Richard Bennett, voted against the scheme, saying the scheme would be intrusive and overbearing for neighbours.