CAMPAIGNERS opposed to plans for yet more retirement homes in Caterham have been accused of ageism.
Opponents were speaking out against controversial plans to demolish the Caterham Cars showroom, in Station Avenue, to make way for 35 sheltered housing apartments.
The town is already inundated with old people's accommodation and the proposed scheme – which also includes 128 square metres of commercial floor space – will make things worse, a planning inspector was told last Wednesday
Yet more sheltered housing "rabbit hutches" is the last thing Caterham needs, the appeal hearing also heard.
The scheme was rejected in June by Tandridge District Council's planning committee, but developers Churchill Retirement Living's appeal against the decision was heard at the Oxted council offices last week.
Caterham district councillor Jill Caudle said: "On the Right Move website there were 62 retirement flats for sale in the Caterham area alone. We already have enough in the town without adding more rabbit hutches."
Dr Jonathan Lewis, of Caterham Valley Medical Practice, in Eothen Close, warned that an influx of elderly residents could throw more pressure on the surgery.
He said its number of patients had soared to about 8,700 in recent years.
Dr Lewis told the hearing: "We already look after eight warden-controlled homes.
"To have yet more sheltered accommodation will make our workload a huge amount more."
Caterham Valley parish councillor Jackie Servant said the town needed an influx of younger people, not more and more elderly.
She added: "We have 36.8 per cent of the district's sheltered housing but five per cent of the elderly population. That is grossly out of proportion."
Andrew Burgess, of Churchill Retirement Living, said: "It would be verging on ageism and discrimination to restrict this (application).
"There is an overwhelming need for private sheltered housing. There is very little demand here for retail use."
Richard Sturt, of the scheme's Hampshire-based agents Planning Issues Ltd, insists the site has no viability for future employment.
The appeal decision is expected in early January.