CAMPAIGNERS against plans to build another superstore in Tavistock are delighted by a planning inspector's decision to turn down an appeal by Sainsbury's.

The announcement followed rejection of the supermarket chain's plan by West Devon Borough Council last October, which resulted in Sainsbury's making an appeal to the planning inspectorate.

The six-day appeal took place in late April at the Bedford Hotel, Tavistock, when those for and against the proposals put their case to the inspector, Andrew Pykett.

The site would have consisted of three fields at Brook off the Plymouth Road, the main A386. Sainsbury's proposed to build a mixed use development comprising the erection of a class A1 foodstore, including a coffee shop and other customer facilities, a petrol filling station and related facilities, 17 business units, an office building, car parking, servicing, landscape provision and recycling facilities.

The appeal dismissal was most welcomed by the Brook Campaign, a group which includes many town business, especially formed in opposition to the Sainsbury's proposals.

Founder of the Brook Campaign Nigel Eadie, who is also chairman of Tavistock and District Chamber of Commerce, said: 'We are obviously delighted with the result. It is a tremendous tribute to the way the town, across the business community, local residents and, of course, West Devon Borough Council, have all worked together to achieve a fairly monumental result in defeating Sainsbury's.

'When a little town like ours gathers so much support to defeat such a huge and powerful machine as Sainsbury's it is no mean feat.'

Mr Pykett admitted he was pulled in two directions in coming to a conclusion. The two main reasons to turn down the appeal were on the grounds of impact on the 'vitality of the town' and the accessibility to the site, which lies almost a mile out of the town centre.

He said in his report: 'Notwithstanding the benefit of the scheme in relation to its potential for the generation of employment, I consider the retail element of the proposed development to be significantly more substantial in both economic and social terms.

'On balance, I believe the harm is not outweighed by the benefit, and it is for these reasons that I have concluded the appeal should be dismissed'.

Mr Pykett upheld the borough council's concerns about the adverse impact of the store on the town centre. He was particularly critical of the location, which he felt would attract largely car-borne shoppers who would be unlikely to walk, drive or use buses to carry out linked trips with the town centre.

Independent planning consultant Stephen Gill, who represented the Brook Group at the inquiry, said he was absolutely thrilled and relieved: 'Our campaign was never anti-Sainsbury's or even anti-supermarket but merely trying to defend our unique town centre.

'Fortunately, the government inspector has concluded that the proposals would have had a significant impact on the town centre and adversely affect its role and character.

'This was the argument we put to the inquiry and it is heart-warming to know we won.'

Mr Gill praised Mr Eadie for the amount of time, effort and money he had put in to organise the whole campaign.

'I think this came across strongly at the inquiry and I feel that the people of Tavistock have an awful lot to thank Nigel for.'

Jane Hart, the borough council's chief planning officer, said: 'We are so pleased that the Inspector recognised the adverse implications of the scheme on the quality of Tavistock's very special town centre.'

But the result will be a disappointment for many who would have welcomed a new superstore in the town, including those who voiced their support at the inquiry.

In response to the turning down of their appeal Bruno Moore, Sainsbury's regional town planning manager for the South West, said: 'We are clearly disappointed with the Inspector's decision and are now taking time to consider the detail of his letter.'

Sainsbury's have the option to appeal to the High Court for a judicial review but could do so only if the inspector failed to take something into account or he had taken something into account he should not have done at the inquiry.