CHRISTCHURCH councillors reluctantly gave the go-ahead to a controversial planning application in Purewell after warnings they could have to fork out up to £30,000 costs if they refused it.

At a previous meeting of the planning control committee in December, members opposed plans to demolish outbuildings at 128 Purewell and build a pair of semi-detached cottages on and behind the existing shop, which is in the local conservation area.

With the plans having been refused twice previously, the scheme was recommended for approval by planning officers but committee members, opposed to the idea, refused to vote on the application at the meeting just before Christmas.

This left the application undetermined, which would have left the council open to costs if the applicants decided to appeal.

Following the refusal, the council commissioned a report from Goadsby Planning and Environment in which expert Peter Atfield stated: “If the appeals were successful (and we believe they would be), the extent of costs is difficult to determine at this stage but could be within the range of £10,000-£30,000 plus VAT.”

Cllr Colin Jamieson, vice-chairman of the planning committee said: “Whether we like this or not we have to by law abide by the law.”

But Cllr Peter Hall, who voted against the proposal, said: “I don’t agree with the application and think it is a shame that because of the financial reasons we can’t afford to challenge.

“This is not good for Christchurch. It is being forced upon us and I cannot support it.”

Cllr David Jones, chairman of the planning committee said: “We would be in deep water if we ignored the advice from the report and officers.

“I don’t think it was a disgrace for us to turn it down. The disgrace is in the system that allows a government-appointed inspector in Bristol to make a decision about a local planning issue.”

Four councillors abstained from voting with the vote 2-1 in favour of the application.