PLANS to build dozens of flats on the derelict site of a former Alum Chine hotel have been approved.

Amirez Ltd has been given planning permission for the latest scheme to redevelop the Chinehurst Hotel plot which it said would be more feasible than previous proposals.

Council planning officer Charles Raven, who approved the plans, welcomed the redevelopment of the Studland Road brownfield site which has been vacant for a decade.

Amirez submitted its application last year after attempts to construct schemes of a mix of flats and holiday lets that had already been given permission failed.

“The approved schemes have been marketed extensively without any interest,” a statement submitted with its application said. “The proposed residential development will deliver an increased economic gain to that of a mixed residential/holiday let development.”

It added: “[The development] will revitalise this partly-vacant and underutilised site and delivers a high quality scheme which will greatly improve the Studland Road street scene and the site’s visual impact and presence.”

Its new application proposed the construction of two four-storey blocks with a total of 45 flats, the majority of which would be two-bed. None would be made available on an ‘affordable’ basis.

A basement parking area would also be constructed for the use of residents.

Eleven letters of objection to the application were submitted raising concerns about the “excessive” scale of the proposed development and the impact it would have on Alum Chine.

Eight people wrote in support, welcoming the redevelopment of the site which has been derelict since the former Chinehurst Hotel, which closed in 2007, was demolished.

And planning permission has now been granted by BCP Council planning officer Charles Raven who welcomed the provision of extra homes in the area.

“The development would provide housing on a brownfield site,” his report approving the application said. “The impact of the built form on the character and appearance of the area is acceptable [and] the development would not result in a harmful impact on residential amenity.”