Councillors have rejected plans for a new business park that would have ‘destroyed a rural village’.

There was almost unanimous rejection by Teignbridge District Council’s planning committee for the scheme for land adjacent to the existing Little Liverton Business Park.

Officers had recommended that the plans be given the go-ahead, citing the economic benefits that the proposal that could have created up to 400 new jobs to the region would bring, but it was rejected on the grounds the scale of development was not reasonable given it is a green field site and due to the lack of sustainable travel options to access it.

Recommending approval, the report to the meeting said that while the site is not designated as employment land in the Local Plan, significant weight should be given to the delivery of employment units in the face of significant under-delivery, and the delivery of a balance between jobs to working population is a key element of sustainable development.

Ian Roach, speaking in favour of the plans, added that ‘this can make an extremely positive benefit to the economy of Teignbridge.

He added: ‘There is a jobs gap in Teignbridge where people have to commute outside of the district to do their work. This needs to be addressed by new employment opportunities in the district.

‘The allocated sites are not delivering and have little prospect of doing so any time soon, and we are committed to deliver the site early within 12 months and have people interested in relocating. This could deliver between 200 and 400 jobs, which would be a huge boost.’

But local resident Richard Ray said that there is a Local Plan for development to protect the environment and this is not in the Local Plan, adding: ‘If this was approved would take away the joy of living in a rural environment and would destroy the rural character of Liverton.

‘It should benefit the whole community but this is of no benefit to the people of Liverton and violates why the people chose to make Liverton their home.’

Cllr Adrian Patch, who represents the Haytor ward in which the site lies, called for the committee to reject the scheme.

He said: ‘This is the development of a green field site that is not in the Local Plan, so there is no case for it. The evidence for it is demonstrably out of date.’

Cllr Jackie Hook added: ‘I very much support the creation of jobs in Teignbridge near where people live that are easy to access my sustainable modes, but that shouldn’t mean we grant any opportunity that comes our way. Each offer should be weighed up and the balance on this is tipped against it.’

Cllr Martin Wrigley added: ‘We should not be allowing it. There is insufficient reason to make it justifiable,’ while Cllr Janet Bradford said: ‘This isn’t needed and will destroy the rural setting as heavy industry is not conducive to a quiet village.’

But Cllr Phil Bullivant said: ‘We do need sites and we have faced criticism of not delivering sites in recent years. There are questions to be asked, but I am concerned we are potentially throwing away a reasonable site that could be delivered.’