Angry Brinkworth residents will appeal against a North Wiltshire District Council decision stopping them from extending their gardens.

The residents made their decision after a meeting on Saturday.

Six householders at Callow Hill in the village bought about four acres of agricultural land divided up into strips of 32 feet behind their homes from farmer Mike Giles five years ago.

The site is bounded by fencing, hedges and trees, and fences divide most of the plots.

Residents bought the land because there were fears it could be turned into a tip.

But district councillors rejected the residents' application to extend the land for domestic and equestrian use at the end of last month.

Now the homeowners fear the land will become a wasteland because the council says that agricultural land can only be mown twice a year.

Malcolm Baker said he has planted apple, silver birch and cherry trees on his plot of land and wanted to keep the grass area around them tidy.

He said: "Many people thought the district council's decision was stupid. Because it is agricultural land the district council says we can only mow it a few times a year.

"I want to keep the grass around my trees tidy but because of the council decision I cannot. We do not want this land to become derelict. We were baffled by the council decision as we thought we had it's support."

Neighbour Tony Wilson said the council's decision had left the residents frustrated and confused because there was no indication how to manage the land.

Mr Wilson said: "We just want to cut the grass and keep it tidy but we are not even allowed to cut it. What can we do with the land?"

Owen Gibb, chairman of Brinkworth Parish Council, said the district council's decision was illogical. He said: "I'm concerned it was rejected. I feel sorry for the residents who bought the land because they cannot use it for gardens."

District councillors dismissed the application because they said the garden extensions would encroach into open countryside and beyond the framework boundary of the 2001 local plan.

The district council also received 17 letters of objection from villagers who live further along Callow Hill opposing the extensions.

Among their concerns were that the footpath, which runs across the site, would be lost to walkers, and domestic use of the land would adversely affect the wildlife there.

Many also felt the Callow Hill residents already enjoyed substantial gardens and did not need any more.

One resident, who asked not to be named, said she did not oppose people extending their gardens because it helped make the area beautiful.

But she said other residents were against the extensions because they felt the sheds and equipment used in maintaining the agricultural land would be an eyesore for them and create clutter.

One protester wrote to the council saying if the application was permitted it would pave the way for other outbuildings on the site and make it easier for people to build houses on their plots.

Another objector said in his letter that the village's framework boundary must be protected.