MOUNTING public opposition to a small-scale hydro-electric power scheme on the River Walkham at Sampford Spiney failed to persuade Dartmoor planners when they voted in favour of the contentious scheme at the second time of asking.

They had rejected the Huckworthy Mill proposal by 18 votes to none when it was last considered in the spring.

But at last Friday's gathering of the national park authority's development management committee members made an about-turn by voting 9-6 in favour of accepting the plan.

Their backing of the application by Abbotskerswell-based CGP South West came despite a petiton signed by 69 objectors which was handed in before the meeting.

Objectors' spokesman Roger Furniss, secretary of the South West Rivers Association and a member of the Environment Agency's panel on hydro-generation policy, told members he was surprised to be back condemning the scheme when it had already been rejected at the last meeting.

He argued that the new facility, claiming to produce 100KW of power, would only serve 25 homes with full energy compared with claims that 100 homes might benefit.

He said the weir, built in 1578, was a 'pristine Dartmoor treasure' which merited protection under 'national, county and local planning policies'.

Mr Furniss told the committee: 'It was built in the 16th century, partly rebuilt in the 19th century and is now threatened in the 21st century.'

But Duncan Tilney, representing CGP, insisted that the real harm to the character of the weir would be caused by doing nothing at the site and allowing the structure to further 'crumble.'

He said the weir was part of the 'living history of the moor' which could only survive if it continued to evolve.

'If it is not used it will fall into further disrepair,' he said.

Fears were expressed that in the next 40 years the historic weir might well disappear if it was exposed to extreme weather.

Member Nigel Hoskin was not happy about the quality of data before the committee.

He said: 'This is a major proposal, but I find the level of information to be very scant. I've seen more detailed drawings for a two-bedroomed extension for a semi.'

Authority officer Stephen Belli replied that the Environment Agency would not have backed the plan if they felt the 'level of detail' was inadequate.

The committee's deputy chairman James McInnes said the concrete 'fish pass' part of the plan — to protect salmon and sea trout by ensuring their safe passage along the river — was crucial with with abstraction of water along the nearby leet.

David Lloyd remined members that the Environment Agency would be monitoring water abstraction. If this affected any fish the agency could reduce the abstraction or even withdraw the licence.

But he felt any development at the location would result in the loss of a 'heritage asset' and damage the natural beauty of the area.

He wanted the application to be rejected.

Planning officer Jon Holmes' report before the committee agreed that there had been no material change to the plans.

But he stressed: 'Consideration of the application hinges on the archaeological importance of the weir and the impact of the fish pass on the character of the river set against the benefit of the renewable energy scheme.'