Plans to extend a historic bed-and-breakfast pub on protected land in Great Missenden were branded “vandalism” before they were thrown out by the planning committee yesterday evening.

Fresh proposals for the 18th century Nags Head in London Road were hauled in front of Chiltern District Council’s planning committee for the second time after they were deferred in April.

However developers failed to convince council officers that there was proof of “very special circumstances” to allow them to build on the green belt under planning rules.

The proposals included nine additional bedrooms as well as a new kitchen, dining room extension and car park – which would encroach on the neighbouring green belt.

Councillor for Central, Jonathan Rush, raised concerns the extension would be “disproportionate” to the historic building which will ultimately “outweigh the public benefits”.

He said: “I go along with what the historic building officer says and Cllr Jones has said, I think this is a disproportionate addition to the building, and will do great harm and outweigh the public benefits.

“And I think actually, the word comes hard to my lips, I think this will be vandalism.”

Councillor for Prestwood and Heath End, John Gladwin, told the committee rising tourism brought in by various attractions in the area, including the Roald Dahl Museum, means extra accommodation is needed.

He said: “I think the applicant did in fact demonstrate there is significant demand locally for accommodation.

“He produced letters from the Roald Dahl Museum which indicated the level and volume they get – some in the region of 60,000 visitors per year.

“The business is successful and seeks the opportunity to expand. This would result in a more sustainable business providing more employment locally and meeting the identified need for accommodation.”

However Cllr Galdwin failed to convince his colleagues the extension would be an appropriate development of the green belt as the committee voted to bin the plans.

Committee vice-chairman, Mark Titterington, said: “The opportunities given at the last committee for the applicants to demonstrate that it is special circumstances, and in my view the information and evidence presented to this is generic and not specific to this site.

“What weighs particularly heavy with me is if we were to go against the officer’s report and approve this application we would be setting the bar extremely low.”