FOR the second time in a month Britain's biggest retirement property developer, McCarthy and Stone, has taken its battle to build more flats for the elderly in the conurbation all the way to appeal.
A few weeks ago the Bournemouth-based developers were arguing the case for developing 63 retirement flats at The Avenue in Branksome Park.
This week it was Christchurch and the company's plans to develop a block of 68 flats for the elderly plus 13 affordable housing units for key workers at the site of the Bar Max pub in Stour Road.
While the Bransksome Park scheme proved so unpopular neighbouring residents clubbed together to hire a planning expert to air their views, the situation in Christchurch could not be more different.
The Christchurch residents, fed-up living next door to a pub, lobbied councillors urging them to support McCarthy and Stone's plans.
But the councillors on the regulatory planning committee declared that the 45ft-high block of flats was just too big and it failed to meet the council's affordable housing requirements.
On the first day yesterday of a two-day appeal hearing McCarthy and Stone's solicitor, Jonathan Fulthorpe, argued that the proposed building fitted in with its immediate landscape.
And on the affordable housing issue he argued that it was Christchurch council that was going against policy - government policy - which he claimed called for more flexibility from local authorities.
"There's an opportunity to make good here," Mr Fulthorpe told the hearing.
"There will be no sadness for the loss of the current building and the replacement my clients are proposing fits in, it is appropriate in its context.
"And it will make a considerable and significant contribution to sheltered and affordable housing in this area."
But speaking on behalf of the council, solicitor Richard Humphries, told the hearing that the authority had made it clear from the outset that the proposed scheme was considered to be over development of the site.
He added that the council's policy that developers who build more than 25 units must allocate 30 per cent to affordable housing was more than reasonable in this case.
The hearing continues.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article