HOPES of resurrecting a rare but crumbling survivor of Dartmoor’s industrial past have been dashed by national park planners.

They have rejected ambitious proposals to build a futuristic holiday home to fund the revamp of Ilsington’s ‘internationally important’ tin-working Burning House.

But applicants Mark and Gemma Roberts have vowed to continue their fight to save the 19th century relic which has been on the national park authority’s Buildings at Risk Register for more than 20 years.

They insist that the only way they can rescue the Atlas Mine is by installing a semi-submerged, income-earning Earth House just under 14 metres away from the dilapidated historic feature.

The couple, and their agent Nichola Burley, were disappointed after last Friday’s rejection of their plans by the authority’s development management committee.

They said in a statement: ‘We are greatly saddened that the authority has chosen to refuse permission rather than continue to work with us to find a long-term solution to the conservation of the Burning House and its site, a nationally important vestige of tin mining history.

‘We thank officers for their support but feel that the decision to refuse planning permission is premature.’

And they revealed: ‘We are reviewing the most appropriate form of planning appeal to pursue. With such an important building – and strong support from local groups and specialists – a public inquiry may be appropriate.’

Nichola Burley said the authority, by law, must have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the building.’

The committee voted overwhelmingly to dismiss the application after some members made a site visit to see the lie of the land.

They agreed with officers that the project conflicted with numerous basic policies restricting development on the moor in such a sensitive location.

But Nichola Burley, in her appeal at last week’s meeting, argued: ‘This is a project the authority should be looking to support because it does wholly comply with the two statutory purposes of national park designation - to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the park’s special qualities by the public.’

She told members: ‘In my 20 years of working in historic building conservation in Devon – including as expert heritage witness for this authority – I cannot think of another project that better promotes the statutory purpose of the national park.’

She felt the proposal accorded with national and Local Plan policies as well as the requirements of ‘enabling development’ by generating income tied to the restoration of the Burning House.

‘Far from harming the park, as suggested by officers, the project epitomises development that promotes the statutory purpose of the national park,’ she maintained.

Committee member David Lloyd said he respected the sensitivity of the proposal – but he expressed concern about the Earth House’s existence if the applicants cut their involvement with the venture. The case for the application had not been made, he believed.

Dr Ian Mortimer didn’t think the authority should back the project.

‘It’s not the way to go in preserving a heritage asset,’ he suggested.

He did not see why the Earth House had to be built so close to its historic neighbour.

‘A lot of things don’t measure up with the plans for this site. We are breaching important rules by building holiday accommodation in this area,’ he told the committee.

Philip Sanders said there were five unequivocal reasons for refusing the application.

‘It is so clearly in breach of so many of our policies,’ he announced.

Officers, recommending refusal, reckoned the development was unsustainable. The Earth House would cause harm to the immediate setting and the landscape of the listed Burning House nearby.

The new property would also have a detrimental impact on the wooded and agricultural area.

Gemma Roberts said afterwards that she was concerned the committee may have got the impression that rental income from the Earth House was needed to finance the restoration work nearby.

She stressed: ‘Our application confirms that Burning House is restored upfront before any rental income can be received. To achieve this we are investing a substantial amount of our money.

‘The aim is to recoup costs through rental income over the years. The risk is ours.’