Fenland District Council claims they have taken the decision to ban under-18s from the naturist sessions, in line with child protection legislation.

But Andrew Crawford said the ban on under-18s means he, his wife, and their children, who are aged five, eight and 10, will no longer be able to swim together at the monthly naturist sessions at the Manor Leisure Centre in Whittlesey, near Peterborough.

Naturist swimmers of all ages have been able to take part in the sessions for the last nine years, and Mr Crawford believes his family are safer with him than they are if they swim in the public sessions.

He has complained to the council about the decision, which he claims is based on "bigotry and prejudice towards the naturist way of life".

Mr Crawford (41) said: "It shows a complete lack of understanding of naturism."

Up to 100 people swim at the naturist sessions at the pool each month. Of these, Mr Crawford said between 30 and 50 per cent are made up of families with children under 18 years of age.

He added: "This decision has basically eliminated families from the sessions because their children cannot attend.

"Community facilities such as these should be for the benefit of all members of society, including children of naturist families.

"Instead, people going to these sessions are basically being banned because they don't fit a certain dress and code."

Mr Crawford has since lodged a complaint with the council, which he is still pursuing.

Fenland District Council said the decision had been made in line with child protection legislation.

A spokeswoman said: "As an authority, we have a responsibility to ensure that any leisure activities conducted at council premises are in line with child protection legislation.

"The council has based its decision on expert advice from social services and, to date, we have not received any further advice to support the reversal of the decision made."

She added that the complaint was being dealt with through the council's complaints procedure.

However, Mr Crawford, from March, claims that the council has not explained how child protection is jeopardised during the sessions.

He said: "It's absurd to say children are at risk when they are being looked after by both their parents."