A PETITION has been set up in a last ditch attempt to stop the demolition of Little Haven Cottage on Mudeford Quay.

Plans to demolish the cottage, owned by former Christchurch council leader Alan Griffiths, were recently approved on appeal.

But opponents claim the new building proposed for the site would have a detrimental effect on the conservation area.

They set up an online petition on change.org on Monday and have already attracted hundreds of signatures from as far afield as New Zealand, Canada, the USA, Dubai and Australia.

A spokesman for those behind the petition said: "This cottage is part of Mudeford Quay's history and reflects exactly what Mudeford Quay is about, picturesque, historical, inspiring and beautiful.

"Thank you to each and every one of you who has signed the petition to save Little Haven Cottage."

Comments from those who have signed include Trish Merritt from Christchurch who said: "There is no reason to demolish a building that helps to preserve the view of Mudeford Quay as we all know it. It will only provide a new house that no-one who needs a home could ever afford. Shame on whoever thinks otherwise."

Charlotte Scrase from Bournemouth added: "It has historical value and is greatly admired by local people" and Natalie Spencer from New Milton added: "Mudeford is beautiful the way it is. It's history. Don't change it like everywhere else."

Granting approval, planning inspector Megan Thomas said: "In this case I consider that overall, the new building would not harm the significance of this cherished group of buildings, some of which are clearly historic. It would continue to be comparatively low key in scale and unostentatious. The setting and historic integrity of the listed building would not be harmed.”

Ken Parke, planning agent for the development, said: "The appeal proposals are an exceptionally well designed replacement for a building which is failing, which is uninhabitable and which has absolutely no historic merit whatsoever being mostly built in the 1950s.

"The inspector had no hesitation in allowing the appeal of what was a perfectly acceptable proposal which should never have been at appeal in the first place.”