THE FORMER owner of the Burgh Island Hotel has described a planning application for a new hotel suite on the island as a ‘concrete carbuncle.’

The owners of the Burgh Island Hotel want to build what they’re calling a ‘contemporary suite’ on the top of cliffs, overlooking the Mermaid Pool at the back of the island.

The new owners have said that the area needs to stay fresh and contemporary if tourism is to survive.

But Tony Porter, who sold the hotel to Mr and Mrs Orchard in 2001, said: ‘When my wife Bee and I bought the island in 1986, the hotel had been closed for many years. ‘We set about restoring it to its former glory. We restored the hotel and the whole island, intent on making it look like it did in the 1920s.

‘It wasn’t just the hotel that needed work, but the whole island, the pub and the Mermaid Pool. But we didn’t build a single new thing on the island.’

Mr Porter continued: ‘We were horrified last year, when Mr Orchard received permission for 200 solar panels. I know people in Bigbury-on-Sea that now look across the island and see these panels dominating the island.

‘With this application, they’re going a step too far. This proposed building is too far from the hotel to call it a suite. It’s perched on beautiful cliffs overlooking the mermaid pool. People on the mainland will be able to see this modern concrete monstrosity perched on top of the cliffs in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

‘I can’t see how they can possibly call it a hotel suite. Anyone swimming in the Mermaid Pool would see this carbuncle above them.’

Mr Porter added: ‘When we bought the island, we undid all the damage done over the previous 20 years. We can’t stand by and witness another sort of damage inflicted to the island.’

The application has received nine comments in objection to the application, with comments closing on Tuesday, December 6.

One letter of representation from a resident in Bantham drew attention to the South Hams Council’s Local Development Framework, which states that ‘development proposals will need to demonstrate how they conserve and/or enhance the South Hams landscape character, including coastal areas and estuaries.’

The framework also states that any development avoids ‘unsympathetic intrusion in the wider landscape, such as detrimental impact on the character of skylines or views from public vantage points and light pollution’ and respect ‘the unspoilt nature and tranquility of the area.’

The comment from S. Hester-Williams concludes: ‘I feel this development contravenes these policies. This is completely not in keeping with the local surroundings and does not blend in with the existing architecture of the hotel or complement.’

Paul Woodham from Aveton Gifford, writing in objection to the application, described it as an ‘overdevelopment’ and of ‘poor design which will impinge upon the surrounding landscape and will degrade visually the important listed art deco architecture on the most dominant building on the island.’

While D Williams, also from Aveton Gifford, said: ‘There should be no further development on Burgh Island, it’s in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty!’

The application is scheduled to be decided by South Hams Council later this month.

The application can be seen on South Hams Council’s planning website, using the reference number 2879/16/FUL.