A last ditch attempt by campaigners to stop a Premier Inn being built overlooking St Ives has failed.

Residents representing hundreds of people who have opposed the plan to build a 90-room hotel – dubbed a ‘monstrosity’ – overlooking the seaside town took their battle to Parliament last month.

They presented letters to officials asking Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to reverse a decision made by a Government planning inspector to allow the proposal by Premier Inn’s owner Whitbread after a Cornwall Council planning committee originally refused the plan last year. They have now heard the news they dreaded – that the hotel will go ahead.

It will mean the demolition of St Ives’ last remaining care home to make way for the hotel, which has been shunned locally due to its size, location and visual impact.

In a letter sent to Shelley Thornton, on behalf of the opposition group, and Ken Messenger, chairman of St Ives Town Council’s planning committee, the decision is outlined by a Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) official on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister.

It states: “It is clear that the appeal decision in this instance has caused great concern. Both letters allege errors of law on the part of the inspector and ask the Secretary of State to quash the appeal decision.

“Only the courts can quash a decision and it is not in the gift of the Secretary of State to do so. Express provision has been made in legislation for circumstances where aggrieved parties believe there to be an error of law (or of procedural fairness) in a decision. That is by means of a statutory right to challenge a decision on whether to allow or dismiss an appeal in the High Court.”

The letter goes on to say that a legal challenge must be brought within six weeks of the appeal decision – that period of time has now elapsed. Andrew Lynch, on behalf of MHCLG, added: “I appreciate that this is not the preferred outcome for you and I understand that there will be great disappointment as a result. However, the decision of the inspector is now final unless successfully challenged in the courts.”

Posting on a Facebook page dedicated to fighting the Premier Inn plans, Ms Thornton said: “Sadly, Goliath has won this battle! We’ve just heard that Angela Rayner won’t intervene. Today is a very sad day for local democracy, local communities and vulnerable people. And of course the beauty and heritage of our internationally renowned and loved St Ives. Corporate greed wins!

“The sale of the care home has yet to go through, the residents yet to be shipped to all corners of Cornwall, the building to be demolished, and the monstrosity to be constructed. That’s still a lot of ifs. I hope we all remember how Premier Inn has treated this town and its residents when making decisions in the future.”

The town’s Liberal Democrat MP, Andrew George, also commented on the decision. He said: “The planning system is far too lopsided. Developers get a second chance. The communities which must suffer the consequences do not. That’s why I and my party have long advocated there should be a balanced third party right of appeal, where permission is granted in contradiction of local policy, as happened here.

“Developments which add to the problems of an area, like this will – after all, St Ives already has an abundance of holiday accommodation and too few care home places and homes for locals – can keep applying and appealing in the system till they get permission. The community is just left to endure the consequences without redress.

“If anything the Deputy PM is pushing through new law to make the situation even worse. There’s little left for the community to do now.”

On taking their battle to Parliament and not pursuing a High Court case, Ms Thornton said: “We outlined to the Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) we saw why we couldn’t take the Judicial Review route. How could we, as hundreds of individuals, all with different interests and harm to be caused by this development (care home residents and their families, near and less near neighbours, local politicians, local business owners, residents going about their daily business using the road and car park for access and to use the two nurseries, two schools and leisure centre accessed from within the car park, and those who simply care about the environment, skyline and heritage of St Ives) act as one body with ‘sufficient standing’?

“How could we possibly fund the action or take on the financial risk as such a disparate group? We mentioned that the application had received over 600 objections from a small town of only 5,400 people, with only three supporters. We mentioned that the town council was against it, that it violated planning laws and local plans, and that in overturning the local planning authority’s decision, the inspector had acted undemocratically as well as unlawfully.

“We mentioned the one-sided appeal hearing and that vital evidence wasn’t considered. We stressed not only the procedural unfairness but mentioned the three fundamental errors of judgement made by the inspector.”

Ms Thornton added: “The PPS understood why we were there and that we were asking for a ‘call-in’, and said that that was what the process was for. They promised that our letter of request and file would be given due attention and that we would get a response. So yes – this is very disappointing to be given this standard brush off.”