Campaigners have vowed to continue their fight against a proposed hotel development opposite Hampton Court Palace, after their latest legal challenge failed.

The Court of Appeal has rejected architect Keith Garner’s claim that Elmbridge Council did not properly consider whether the four-storey building would harm the setting of the grade I listed historic landmark.

A panel of three judges upheld the High Court’s ruling in January, which said the authority acted lawfully when it granted developers Gladedale and Network Rail’s planning permission to build a 46 bedroom hotel, 66 houses and a care home on the Jolly Boatman site.

But Mr Garner, who has led the campaign against Gladedale’s plans, said after the hearing the fight was not over and he planned to take the case to the Supreme Court.

He said: “The damage could be absolutely enormous and that’s why I’m doing this.

“I’m not doing this to make mischief, I think this is a matter of important principle. We’e got to look at our finances and whether we can raise any more money.”

He urged anyone who wanted to contribute to the campaigns fund to contact him via his website kgarch.co.uk.

Historian David Starkey has described the hotel plans as “an international scandal” and emailed Mr Garner to wish him good luck before the two-day Court of Appeal hearing.

Richard Drabble QC, representing Mr Garner argued that the council failed to properly explain why it believed the hotel would not harm the setting of the palace.

He claimed the authority left out important reasoning in its report, leaving a “lurking doubt” that its decision was lawful.

However, Lord Justice Sullivan said in his ruling he did not accept this.

He said “It is common ground in this court that the mere failure to cite the statutory duty is not fatal to the lawfulness of the decision to grant planning permission, providing the duty has been exercised by the planning authority.

“I’m left in no doubt that the desirability of preserving the setting of the palace was a consideration to which special regard was paid.”

Mr Drabble QC also claimed that English Heritage’s advice to the council was “ambiguous”.

But Lord Justice Sullivan said it would be “inconceivable” for English Heritage to not have objected to the hotel development if it thought the proposal would harm Hampton Court Palace.

What do you think? Leave a comment under this story