A WEST Devon publican this week claimed he had been ?kicked in the teeth? by Dartmoor planners after they refused him permission to put up signs advertising his business.

Phil Acton, landlord of the Bearslake Inn at Sourton, said the main pub sign, a warning sign further up the road and metal signs advertising fresh coffee, cream teas and Devon ice cream have all been refused permission by Dartmoor National Park Authority?s planning committee.

Mr Acton, who took over the listed pub in March 2001 with his wife and mother-in-law, said: ?We came in here at the height of foot and mouth, so it was a struggle. We wanted to renew the signs because they were old and a bit tacky.

?We?re trying to make the business a success, we think we?ve been doing really well and when you get this, it?s a kick in the teeth.

?If I can?t have a sign, people aren?t going to know there?s a business here ? what?s a man to do?

?I can understand it?s a listed building and they don?t want too many signs, but as far as I am concerned, they don?t make the building look tacky.

?The excuse for the coffee sign was that it could confuse drivers going down the road, but it?s a good 15ft inside the gate ? they?re being pedantic and I think they?re getting a bit too bureaucratic.?

Mr Acton said the pub signs were in ?old English? lettering and he could see no reason why they would not be in keeping with the thatched pub and restaurant.

The application was submitted to the planning authority retrospectively, as Mr Acton said they were not aware when they moved to the pub that planning consent would be required for the signs.

DNPA planning committee rejected the signs because they were ?detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Dartmoor National Park and to the setting of the listed building?.

The committee heard the main pub sign would have been allowed if it had not been illuminated, but the advance warning sign was contrary to planning policy.

The free-standing metal signs were considered to be ?of a poor standard of design? and ?inappropriate to the listed premises and its surroundings.

The committee heard the proposal, if accepted, would have resulted in an ?unacceptable multitude of signs at the site? and was therefore unacceptable.

DNPA spokesman Mike Nendick said the committee?s decision was reached after an open debate which took account of planning officers? recommendations reached using government guidelines.

Mr Nendick said: ?Officers have been out on site to discuss with the applicant more appropriate signing. Although this application has been refused, the officers will be quite happy to discuss what would be appropriate within the national park for that particular location?