HOUSING company Sylvan Developments is making a third attempt for planning permission to build homes on the site of the Moorcroft Inn in Okehampton.

The firm said this latest move arose from two appeals in the space of three months where planning inspectors were 'totally at odds with one another'.

West Devon Borough Council's planning committee refused the application for eight homes on the grounds that the Moorcroft Inn at Exeter Road was an 'important community facility', but the applicants have always argued the business is no longer viable since the A30 was built.

Two appeals were lodged and the first inspector decided the council's reasons for refusing the application were unjustified, but the appeal was lost on technical grounds.

The opposite view was taken by the inspector considering the second appeal who felt the business could be made viable with the number of new houses and extension to the industrial estate being planned.

Director of Sylvan Developments Tony Hopper said it was 'inexplicable' how two planning inspectors could take such opposing views in the space of three months.

'For this reason we have decided to resubmit the application, but it is just one of the options we are looking at,' said Mr Hopper, whose company now owns the inn following its closure by previous owners Peter and Nuran Stephenson.

'If it is turned down again we shall go through the appeal process again or put in an alternative application,' he added.

Local residents who launched a campaign to save their local are frustrated by the latest move.

Bill Norris said he was shocked to see the application had been resubmitted when he thought the whole saga was 'done and dusted.'

The resident has

written to several companies, including J D Weatherspoons, to see if they would be interested in taking on the pub.

'I would hope the previous decision made by the planning authority remains unaltered,' he said.

Principal planning officer Chris Watson said the authority would not carry on considering the same application if it thought it was unreasonable to do so.

'The last inspector noted that there was no evidence of viability submitted by the applicants, unlike on the first occasion,' he said. 'In light of this we do not think it would be reasonable to turn this application away.'