A petition against planning approval for a new pool house on Burgh Island has been signed by more than 2,500 people.

In March, South Hams District Council approved the application for a standalone hotel suite straddling the headland and a stack over the island’s famous Mermaid Pool.

An invited competition for the design was won by Carmody Groarke, a London-based architectural practice founded in 2006 by Kevin Carmody and Andy Groarke.

The application was narrowly approved at the development management committee meeting, with a vote of four against three, with three abstentions. It was approved against the officer’s recommendation.

At the meeting, Cllr Julian Brazil said he welcomed the “21st century structure” and it would be a “benefit to the Burgh Island Hotel”.

He said that “your eye is drawn to the white buildings, so the visual impact would be ‘small’” and while it is “not everyone’s cup of tea”, it would improve tourism in the area.

The South West Design Review Panel, which provides “impartial expert advice to applicants and local authorities on design issues” said that it was a design that “could be celebrated internationally” and while they were “concerned over details”, there was the potential for the project to be of “high architectural standard”.

But the former owner of the island, Tony Porter, who started the petition, said he was “flabbergasted” at SHDC’s decision to grant planning permission.

Mr Porter said: “When we owned the island, our policy was always to restore not add. Already the new owners have added hundreds of solar panels, and now this.

“I’m afraid the beauty of the island might be being slowly defaced. I still have such a love for the place, where we spent 16 years of our lives. I hate to see it being disfigured in this way.”

He added: “I think it’s a highly dangerous project, far from the hotel, with a perilous drop on both sides of the pathway leading to it. There is still time to prevent this thing from scarring the island.

“I welcome multiple contact from all those lovers of Burgh Island, far and wide, who can join me in my efforts.”

The petition, which had attracted 2,508 signatures on Wednesday afternoon, has received numerous incredulous comments on the design, from both locals and visitors, with many describing it as a “monstrosity”, and some comparing it to a “Second World War bunker”.

Alyson Gilbert-Smith, from High Hurstwood in East Sussex said: “As a planning consultant, I am utterly dismayed at the granting of this scheme which directly contravenes local policies designed to protect these fragile environments.”

Mac McDonald from Exmouth said: “This seems to be a bizarre and redundant addition. It reminds me of the memorial walk in Pearl Harbour over the wreck of the USS Arizona. What is the problem with people, who cannot help themselves, when faced with outstanding natural beauty, in thinking that they can ‘improve’ it with an odd bit of architecture? Its nothing but crass vanity, the vanity of placing something that looks like a badly designed pillbox somewhere, without having the excuse of a ’threat of invasion’ to fall back on. This design would look all very well hidden at the back of a Dartmoor car park, as a new interpretation for a public toilet (I have seen a few similar buildings) but to pretend that one is creating a masterpiece to enhance the natural landscape is ludicrous. Sheer vanity.”

Matilda Durant from Thurlestone said: “I live locally to Burgh Island, I am also an RNLI lifeguard working on Bantham and Bigbury beach, I believe this horrific build is completely unnecessary and simply a show of money. I dislike the disgusting design and believe we should be focusing on keeping our beautiful unique coastline preserved and protected.”

Gillian Cook from Bigbury-on-Sea said: “Apart from the totally out of place design, this flouts South Hams planning rules. Also, as with many cliff-side buildings at Bigbury (several of which have passed planning in the last few years), it will fall into the sea fairly soon and form a hideous site at this beautiful location.

“At the Follaton House presentation there were no questions on this fairly fundamental subject - I wonder why?”

Former Bigbury parish councillor, Peter Cook spoke at the development management committee meeting where permission was granted.

Mr Cook said that he knew “almost every local resident” and that nobody he knew is “in favour of this development”.

Mr Cook called the building a “concrete carbuncle” and said the “brutal design” was “inappropriate” in a “prominent position”, and would ruin the Mermaid Pool above which the building is proposing to sit.

Mr Cook focused on the visibility of the building from Folly Hill approaching Bigbury-on-Sea and from the South West Coast Path at Clematon Hill, noting that none of the photos in the application took into account the downwards view from the coast paths.

He also said the application is “contrary to policy CS1 of the South Hams Core Strategy and DP2 of the South Hams Development Policy”.

Policy CS1 states: “It is important to protect, conserve and enhance the character features of the landscape... the finite resources of the undeveloped coastal zone.”

While Policy CS9 states: “The quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced”. The DMC were told that Burgh Island doesn’t actually fall within the AONB, something that is thought to be a drafting error - as the beaches surrounding it do, so objectors describe it as “being in the setting of the AONB”.

The development management committee were told that Burgh Island doesn’t actually fall within the AONB, something that is thought to be a drafting error, but the beaches surrounding it do, so the AONB was still a consideration.

The AONB themselves recommended refusal of the application on the grounds that it could “harm the landscape” and the council received one letter of support and ten letters of objection.

Tony Orchard from the Burgh Island Hotel told the BBC this week: “I felt that the positives, the innovative and exciting design, and the good effects that will have on tourism, outweighed any negatives that would have on the AONB.”