Retirement flats developer claims smaller block 'not deliverable' in Hythe planning battle

A BIGGER block of retirement flats should be allowed in the centre of Hythe because a smaller version is “not deliverable”, a developer argued at a public inquiry which kicked off this week.

Churchill Retirement Living faced off against New Forest District Council for four days at Lymington Town Hall over plans for 43 apartments on the corner of South Street and St John’s Street, next to the new Lidl supermarket.

Churchill already has permission from NFDC for 36 there – but the company has said it needs more units to make the project financially viable, following government changes to rules on residential service charges.

The bigger, three-storey proposal was refused by councillors last year for its size and likely impact on the nearby conservation area and listed buildings.

Ringwood-based Churchill appealed and on Tuesday a hearing was opened by planning inspector Harold Stephens.

Speaking for the developer, Neil Cameron QC said: “The 36-unit scheme is not deliverable, so the applicant has devised a new plan for retirement housing” which would require a “clear and convincing justification” for refusing.

The proposals “strike the right balance” between the impact on the local character and the public benefits of new homes, he said.

Positives included freeing up family housing in the New Forest by meeting the need for retirement accommodation close to facilities, and the removal of the building supplies business currently there.

Mr Cameron said: “It’s the applicant’s case that the proposed development will not adversely affect the listed buildings. It will cause little substantial harm to the conservation area. It’s the applicant’s case that the harm is at the lower end of the scale.”

Cllr Alex Wade, of Hythe West and Langdown, said he represented neighbours who feared harm to the appearance of an area typified by mostly older, two-storey terraced houses.

He said: “The key issues are that the application adds another level which not only overlooks property but adds bulk to the street and impacts on the street scene. It will produce a cavernous effect on the street, which is quite disconcerting to residents.”

The fourteen parking spaces was also not enough, he warned. “We have a real concern that will force people to park on the street which is already dominated by parking. There’s a real risk to people from these cars on this road every day.”

He said a development of family houses would be more useful than another block of retirement flats, of which a number had been proposed in the village recently.

Speaking for NFDC, Charles Banner said the architectural impact on the neighbourhood outweighed Churchill’s claimed benefits.

“It’s important to consider that the smaller scheme was accepted on balance – the report did not consider it a harm-free proposal,” he said.

“The key issue is whether the larger building results in a balance that will have an acceptable impact on its surroundings. That is central to the inquiry.” He added: “The answer to that question is no.”