A planning inspector has upheld a decision to refuse planning permission for a large Co-op supermarket on the edge of Bere Alston.

The original plan, submitted by developer Westcountry Land, for a large convenience store (expected to be the Co-op) was controversial with councillors and residents disagreed over its merits.

Supporters said a new store would be well-used by those living on the Bere peninsula, being three times the size of the existing cramped village centre Co-op store which has poor access for wheelchair users.

Also, a new store, on the B3257 on the way out of the village, would create local jobs and provide convenient shopping without the need to travel to Tavistock.

However, opponents said a new shop would harm wildlife habitats on what is a currently a field, damage the trade of the existing shops and cafes in the village centre and disturb nearby residents, being an intrusion on the rural surroundings.

West Devon Borough Council (WDBC) duly refused the plan and applicant Westcountry Land then appealed the decision. The Planning Inspectorate then considered the appeal, reporting back with a decision on Wednesday, November 5.

The inspector said the shop should not be built and supported the borough council’s decision. He agreed with borough planners that the shop would damage the thriving village centre and was in the wrong place in the countryside.

The planning inspector concluded: “The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the existing Bere Alston local centre. Accordingly it would be at odds with the requirements of joint local plan (JLP) policy.”

He also said the planned shop “would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of this National Landscape, but rather would have an adverse impact on the village’s setting, and consequently on the character and appearance of the surrounding area”.

But the inspector did not agree with all the council’s reasons for refusal. He said the shop would support ‘sustainable’ growth, meeting the needs of residents without harming the environment.

He also disagreed with the council saying it would have an “unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of [neighbour] Highfield, through noise, activity and disturbance’” He said effective mitigation measures could be put in place to support residents and the environment.

Ultimately, though, these two last points were not as significant as the village centre and landscape impacts, said the inspector. Therefore, on balance he still upheld the council’s decision.