CONTROVERSIAL plans to convert a former military camp near Holywell Bay into a holiday park have been refused.

Councillors turned down plans to create a 67-unit holiday park at the Penhale Camp at Kelsey Head due to its impact on the surrounding area of great landscape value.

The scheme at the former Ministry of Defence site was also refused as councillors felt the holiday park would not be an appropriate scale for the location.

Planning officer James Moseley had recommended the plans for approval as he could not see strong grounds for refusal despite admitting “it was not a great scheme.”

Councillors raised concerns the holiday park would have a detrimental impact on wildlife and the headland site, which is designated as a site of special scientific interest.

A number of councillors stated they would like to see the site used for housing as it would provider a “greater benefit”.

More than 100 residents had objected to the plans following concerns the protected landscape could be damaged by thousands of visitors descending on the area every year. There were also objections from The Ramblers Association and Perranzabuloe Parish Council.

Residents gave an impassioned plea for the scheme to be turned down ahead of the decision, arguing the scheme would damage ecology, exacerbate traffic into Cubert and Holywell Bay and could make the Cubert Crossroads more dangerous.

They stated the site should be returned to its natural state as it was before the “temporary” measure of creating the military camp in response to a national emergency.

Dr Carter, speaking against the scheme, said: “The committee decision must satisfy the high bar set by habitat regulations. The recommendation to approve does not achieve that. It does not ensure protected habitats will not be harmed.”

Resident Jacqui Treasure added: “The development is unnecessary and will impact on the local area. The area already has three caravan parks.”

The holiday park plans, which were submitted by Clerkenwell Estates (Holywell Bay) Ltd, also included building a swimming pool, spa area, restaurant, bar, reception building and staff facilities.

Edward Ledwidge, the applicant’s agent, said the CABÜ holiday park would be the fourth such venue (others are in Kent, Ireland and the Cotswolds), many of which are in sensitive environmental locations. “The ethos of the development is to create high quality accommodation with wraparound facilities for non-exclusive use. The aim is to provide year-round accommodation that will be targeted at 11,000 short-term holidays which represents around 25,000 visitors, which is fully supported by Visit Cornwall.”

He said extensive work had been carried out with Natural England and the council’s ecologist to ensure protection of the sensitive areas during construction and operation. Mr Ledwidge added that it would be a £20m construction programme, a considerable percentage of which would go to local businesses.

Cornwall Council’s strategic planning committee refused the holiday park plans by eight votes to one.

Councillor John Fitter said: “This tourism related development is not really required in this location because it is already satisfied by three large neighbouring camping sites.”

Cllr Steve Arthur added: “I would not support this application even if it was 100 per cent affordable housing led.

“The Cubert Crossroads junction is a deathtrap and I’m not going to have that on my hands.

“I think it would be an over saturation of tourism for the sake of the headland. That headland is alive with various creatures.”

Cllr Rob Nolan said: “The government has just told us we need to increase house building in Cornwall by 1,500 a year.

“I think we should hang onto this site for housing. We are going to need every site we have got, and housing was previously approved for this site.” Cllr Dulcie Tudor added: “I’m worried about the impact the scheme would have on the highway and because of the lack of consultation.”

Separate plans to build nine new housing units and refurbish existing cottages to form three dwellings at the site were approved despite concerns it would lead to piecemeal planning rather than the area benefitting from a masterplan.