Wealthy benefactors living near Hampton Court Palace could be the historic landmark’s only hope of fighting off a proposed hotel development opposite, campaigners said.

Architect Keith Garner, who lost a High Court bid to block the controversial plans last week, said he believed affluent communities in Richmond and Surrey could raise “a few million pounds” to cover Gladedale’s costs if the developer wanted to back down.

Campaigners claimed the planned four-storey 46 bedroom hotel, along with 66 new houses and a care home next to Hampton Court station would “ruin” breathtaking views of the treasured national monument.

Mr Garner, a former consultant to Historic Royal Palaces - the charity that looks after Hampton Court Palace - believed the Jolly Boatman site, on the opposite bank of the Thames to the Grade I listed landmark, should be open public land.

He said: “What ought to happen is Gladedale should be given an offer by a combination of benefactors and lottery money to take a sum of money and walk away, so it will cover their costs up until now.

“The Jolly Boatman site should be given over to the public domain, to Historic Royal Palaces or the council and should simply left landscaped and left open.

“It is a rich area, there are very wealthy people in that part of London, I don’t see why a few million pounds to buy out Gladedale couldn’t be assembled, even though we lost the case.”

He said thousands of tourists who visit the palace would only see the back of the hotel as they arrive by train, instead of “sublime” views over the river, if the hotel development goes ahead.

The High Court ruled last week that Elmbridge Council acted lawfully when it granted Gladedale and Network Rail planning permission in December 2008 to build on the derelict land.

Gladedale declined to say when it planned to start construction, amid claims the firm will have to submit a new planning application after the Royal Star and Garter charity pulled out of the project.

But the company said this week it “fully intends to move forward with the proposed development”, which it has described as “high quality” and “supported by many local people”.

Mr Garner claimed the development was not justified, adding: “Gladedale as a commercial organisation should be entitled to a reasonable sum for their site. I think it should be assembled and given to Gladedale to make a dignified exit.”