A controversial proposal to bring four log cabins with hot tubs to a picturesque beauty spot has been dubbed an "alien invasion" which campaigners claim will attract hen and stag parties.
If built, the one-acre site could provide "much-needed" tourism accommodation for nearby National Forest attractions.
But protesters against the development, located to the rear of 45 to 59 Manchester Lane, Hartshorne, claim it is an intrusion into the countryside and should be rejected.
The plans have been submitted to South Derbyshire District Council by George Dunnicliff and will be decided at the authority's planning committee meeting on Tuesday, February 6. They have been recommended for approval.
A previous application was rejected by councillors last year as it represented an "unwarranted intrusion into the countryside". The site layout has since been amended for the latest application.
Both Hartshorne Parish Council and Hartshorne Village Residents' Association have objected to the proposals, which have also attracted an online petition with more than 190 signatures and 12 formal objections.
The association has described the scheme as an "alien invasion".
They claim the log cabins could cater for up to 32 people at a time, causing noise and disruption.
They added that Manchester Lane is quite narrow and has been the scene of several accidents – one in December, last year.
They also add that there are no amenities in Hartshorne apart from a few pubs.
However, Mr Dunnicliff has said the scheme would not have a harmful impact upon the landscape. He said it will also provide much-needed accommodation in the area, with a safe and suitable access.
However, he faces a backlash from Kevin Banton of the residents' association, who said: "There are an awful lot of problems associated with it. (Since the first application) the applicant has put a lot of work into a visual import report (which looks at the impact on neighbours).
"The district council commissioned its own report which actually conflicted with the applicant's."
The council admitted that the applicant had not considered the neighbours and that woodland planting near these homes may not be appropriate.
However, it said in the report: "Nonetheless, the latter must be recognised as part of the 'ethos' of encouraging tourist accommodation in the National Forest, with occupants of the lodges transitory and not likely to expect the same standard of living as if they were permanent residential homes."
Mr Banton added: "There will be four log cabins, one three berth, two are four berth and one is five berth so every week we stand to have 32 new people moving in and out of this site behind our houses."
Mr Banton also said the size of the log cabins may not be used by families, but by stag and hen nights - leading to concerns about noise and antisocial behaviour.
The council said various conditions could be submitted which would require that hot hubs are vacated by 11pm each night. However, it is a condition residents do not feel would be adhered to by occupants.
He also claims that Manchester Lane is not a suitable access for the site, saying: "It is quite a narrow lane with no footpaths so anyone using the site who have children or are using bicycles would need to use that narrow lane so it is not really feasible to walk into the village from here."
However, the council has said this is not dissimilar to residents living near the site.
While Mr Banton agrees that the National Forest is an attraction, he says there are not enough attractions in Hartshorne to support visitors coming to stay "for a week or so".
He added: "Calke Abbey is close by but the Peak District and Alton Towers, which are all attractions, are far too far away for Hartshorne. There is nothing in Hartshorne apart from a couple of pubs."
The site is also just yards away from Horn Hill, from which, it is claimed, Hartshorne takes its name.
The local community has asked to designate the Horn Hill location as a conservation area and protect the site. But the council's planning officers say the hill is not recognised as a scheduled monument or feature on the Historic Environment Record.
Mr Dunnicliff was keen to highlight that consideration has been given to the layout of the cabins.
It is also noted in the council report that the development "would not generate significant movement" in traffic and that access was suitable.
Mr Dunnicliff said: "The application proposes the siting of four holiday cabins within a landscaped setting.
"Careful consideration has been given to the layout to ensure that the proposals will provide a sustainable form of development which would not have a harmful impact upon either the existing landscape features or the character of the area.
"The proposal will provide much-needed self-catering accommodation and is in alignment with national and local planning and National Forest objectives, which seek to bolster the tourism economy by securing more accommodation facilities to provide opportunities for overnight stays and short term breaks.
"The proposal will create job opportunities for local people, bringing economic as well as tourism benefits to the local area."
In the report the applicant also claims that the site is located within an accessible location to existing facilities and public transport provision.
The report also added that the development would not generate significant movement in traffic.
In conclusion, planning officers, who describe the site as "unremarkable and in a physically poor condition", said: "The proposal would introduce a slightly 'inorganic' grain of development in this particular locale, but it is the type of development which has been supported elsewhere in the National Forest.
"It is also not a completely alien form of development along the linear routes around Hartshorne.
"Similarly, the amenity impacts would be broadly comparable to that possible through conventional occupation of the existing homes adjacent.
"With a managing agent intended to oversee their use, there would also be a means to record and address any isolated incidents."