A bid to knock down an old office in Giffnock and build a family home has been recommended for refusal by planners.

East Renfrewshire Council has received 12 objections to an application to demolish the former J H Barclay & Co building on Burnfield Road and create a house.

Residents believe the proposal would be out of character with the area.

Documents submitted on behalf of the applicant, Joshua Ekundayo, claim the plan would “create a generous family dwelling within the desirable Giffnock area”.

An artist's impression of what the home would look likeAn artist's impression of what the home would look like (Image: Planning) The council’s planning committee will meet tomorrow (Wednesday) to rule on the project. Planning officials believe the scheme should be refused as it would be overdevelopment of the site.

Previously a single-storey commercial unit, permission is being sought to knock down the building and erect a two-storey home, which keeps the current basement.

Mr Ekundayo’s application states the site is located in “a desirable residential area, however, the building itself requires a full demolition and rebuild to meet the requirements of a modern family home”.

It adds the house would be set back from Burnfield Road allowing for “additional privacy and access on foot without impeding on the existing pavement”.

“Due to the staggered nature of the plots, there is no risk of overshadowing or overlooking,” the application claims.

(Image: Google) The property would include four bedrooms, an open-plan kitchen, living and dining space and a family bathroom.

One objector said the proposed house “is not in keeping with the other houses and indeed looks like a black warehouse”. They added: “The position and height of it means from the upstairs windows, the owners can see into all our back gardens.”

Another resident said: “The design of the building is not in keeping with other residences in the neighbourhood. The plot is too small for such a large building.”

Residential development on the site is “considered to be acceptable in principle” and previous plans for a home on the site were approved.

However, planners reported the proposed home “by virtue of the size of the footprint relative to the size of the plot represents the overdevelopment of the site”.

They added it would be a “dominant and incongruous addition” and has “inadequate parking and access arrangements”. Minimum requirements for private open space have also not been met, which is to “the detriment of the residential amenity of the future occupants”.  Roads officials also recommended refusal due to safety concerns, as they said the proposed driveway should be longer and three parking spaces are required rather than two.