RESIDENTS of Venn Farm Lane, Teignmouth, were given a choice: accept a property developer's application for a new in-fill house, or see the destruction of a 'beautiful Devon meadow' which backed their homes. But the ploy did not work and this week alleged unauthorised works to the field in question were the subject of a two-day planning appeal. The field was described by one resident as a unique backdrop in Teignmouth, providing a haven for butterflies, flowers and wildlife. It is within an area of great landscape value and coastal preservation area. Elizabeth Lancaster-Thomas, represented by her husband, Dr Vaughan Lancaster-Thomas, appealed against enforcement proceedings to remove a track, grass-crete surfacing and a two metre high fence from the field behind Barn Cottage at Venn Farm Lane. The hearing heard that in the three years since the Lancaster-Thomas' had acquired Barn Cottage and the land field behind, it had been the subject of 15 planning applications, including one for a poultry farm and another for 18 allotments each with their own hut or caravan. In January 2004, neighbours complained to Teignbridge Council about unauthorised engineering works on the site and last April an enforcement notice was served. A further notice was issued in August requiring the fence, hardcore and reinforced concrete surfacing to be removed and the land to be restored to its natural state. The same month the secretary of state confirmed the removal of 'permitted development' rights. A land tribunal case is currently underway in which the Lancaster-Thomas' are claiming compensation for their consequential loss of earnings. Simon Barnes, representing the council, said that the development was detrimental and set an indesirable precedent in the protected landscape. At the appeal, Dr Lancaster-Thomas argued that the purpose of the track was to ease the emptying of neighbours' septic tanks. In building it he was fulfilling his duty to maintain the right of way. The fence was necessary to provide allotment-holders with privacy from the road. The grass-crete surfacing at the rear of Barn Cottage was to provide access to the 'kitchen' or 'allotment' portion of the garden – previously part of the field. Giving evidence, residents voiced their suspicions that the track had been built for a different reason entirely. William Carpenter, a Venn Farm Lane resident for 26 years, said the track was completely unnecessary and that the fence was dangerous as it blocked the line of sight for motorists. Steve Anderson, representing residents, asked Mr Carpenter about a letter residents received from the Lancaster-Thomas' last November. 'It set out their business plan for the land but invited you not to raise any objections to their subsequent applications on the basis that they would no longer pursue that business plan,' said Mr Anderson. Mr Carpenter said the letter had been an attempt to 'browbeat' them into submission. A copy of the letter has been obtained by this paper. It spells out the alternative 'business plan' the Lancaster-Thomas' had come up with after residents opposed plans to build a new house. The letter proposed dividing the field into 18 individual plots to be sold or long-leased, each with vehicular access, to be used for 'almost any recreational activity on any 28 full days/nights per year'. It added: 'However, we still feel that it must be better to preserve the rural character of Venn by infilling one house plot in the Lane and dedicating the field to nature,' and suggested residents' could avoid this by writing in support of their application for a new house. The letter ended: 'It really is up to you. It would be so sad if the preservation of this tranquil, rural environment were to be sacrificed to narrow-minded NIMBYs.' Robert Perry, a resident for 19 years, told the appeal inspector that the field was a 'beautiful Devon meadow' full of butterflies, flowers, animals and birds. His cottage overlooked the grasscrete access. He said that land had been stripped with weedkiller and that toxic waste had been burnt there. 'Frankly it made me sick to my guts to see the field being treated in this way after 20 years. I believe the applicant wants to make as much money as possible in the shortest possible time and get out and hang the environmental damage.' Cross-examining, Dr Lancaster-Thomas asked: 'Is it reasonable that you should want to preserve something because it looks nice to you when the owner wants to make it a business?' After listening to hours' of hair-splitting cross-examination, the inspector, David Harrison, repeatedly interrupted Dr Lancaster-Thomas, saying, 'I don't think this is relevant. This is not helping your case.' He will now have to consider his findings before issuing a decision. Both sides have applied for costs.
