Councillors have upheld the rejection of planning permission for holiday accommodation which has already been built at a site near Torrance.

In March East Dunbartonshire Council refused planning permission for a wellbeing retreat, intended for practitioners of the martial art Muay Thai, with eight cabins, a BBQ area and other facilities at Hungryside off the A807. The cabins have already been built with events having taken place. Two of the sheds have also been converted – one caters to yoga, meditation and fitness while the other is used for storage.

Hungryside features a dwelling and three large outbuildings which were previously a US Navy oil pumping station. It may subsequently have operated as a commercial kennel but no official record of this exists.

The application received 15 objections with complaints spanning several pages of the council’s report. These highlighted inaccuracies in the application, impact on residential amenity, lack of demand for tourism services, loss of greenbelt and more besides with Torrance Community Council among the most prolific objectors.

Ultimately it was recommended that planning permission be refused for numerous reasons, citing several violations of planning regulations. It was also said that the development would offer no benefit to the surrounding area.

Planning officers also wrote that they consider the cabins and BBQ shelter to be unauthorised buildings that should be removed. The change of use of one of the sheds to a gym and yoga facility is also currently unauthorised and recommended for refusal.

The cabins had already been built before the planning application was submitted, due to being demanded under planning enforcement measures. Officers also complained that supporting documentation arrived in a “piecemeal” fashion before notice of refusal was sent to the applicant in March.

The design of the facility was also deemed to be harmful with the local area and that the community would not benefit from the development, nor did it need to be sited in a rural location, also that no business case had been submitted although this was later provided in the appeal process.

Planning officers also deemed that the development would be harmful to nature conservation in the area as the site is adjacent to a wildlife corridor and other locations of importance. .

It was also agreed that the amount of activity on the site would be harmful to residential amenity.

The local review body agreed unanimously to uphold the original decision.