Neighbours of a proposed retirement complex on the site of the Shiel Hill Tavern feel "railroaded'' by the Dunedin City Council's decision to grant consent for the project.
Jeremy Forlong, who lives in a neighbouring home with his wife Mel, said he "totally disagreed'' with the decision to grant consent for the 25-apartment retirement complex and was looking into appealing the decision.
The proposed village will be marketed as an "alternative residential option'' targeting those aged 65 and older, who could still live independently.
The self-contained apartments would be built over two storeys and the bar would act as a clubroom for residents.
But Mr Forlong said there was a "99% chance'' the couple would appeal the decision.
"It's definitely something we are looking into,'' he said.
"We feel quite railroaded.
"It's a very single-sided and biased decision in my eyes.''
Another neighbour, Sam West, was also shocked by the decision to grant consent.
"We are really, really disappointed in the council,'' she said.
"No-one had anything positive to say, all the neighbours were against it and the council still just went through with it.''
Dunedin planner Don Anderson, who represented the developers at the resource consent hearing for the proposal, said he was pleased with the decision and saw it as a victory for common sense.
Developer Ezra Eini said the decision was "perfect''.
"The decision is fantastic,'' he said.
"I want to thank the council. I think they made a good decision. They are thinking about the future and what is needed for Dunedin.''
Hearings committee chairman Cr Andrew Noone said, in his decision, that a retirement complex was an "appropriate use for the site''.
"There will be significant future demand for retirement housing and this proposal will potentially assist in providing for elderly residents from the local community to continue to reside in the area,'' he said.
The proposal would have a similar effect to any other dwelling, which the developers could build as of right, on the site.
The property which would be most significantly affected, 5 Bone St, was not of concern as the developers reached a purchase agreement with the owners of the house, the decision said.
The committee was content with the proposed mitigations offered by the developers in regards to transportation networks, landscaping and facade treatment of some of its surfaces.
The proposal was a "true exception'' and therefore consent could be granted, Mr Noone said.
Mr Eini said he and his partner were working through some of the financial conditions of the proposal and, if no appeals were lodged, work to begin construction would "start straight away''.
Parties have up to 15 working days to lodge an appeal with the Environment Court.
