RESIDENTS packed a council meeting to protest about a scheme to build a big new housing estate on a Teignmouth beauty spot, and declared: 'Tell the developers to leave our lovely countryside alone.'

They were objecting to an application to construct 140 homes on fields to the north of New Road, and maintained it would be a scar on the landscape, damage wildlife and the environment, increase flooding and traffic congestion, and overwhelm local facilities.

The development of one, two, three and four-bedroom houses could increase the population of Teignmouth by up to 500. The town council's planning sub-committee on Tuesday backed the residents, and will recommend Teignbridge planners to refuse it at their April meeting.

Cllr Don Baldey declared: 'The only need for housing in Teignmouth is for first-time buyers, and this development does not meet that.

'The residents have put forward a good case, and I strongly object to the scheme.'

Committee chairman Cllr Sylvia Russell added: 'This could have a big effect on the local area. We can say what we don't like about it, but it must be based on sound planning reasons.

'If refused, it will undoubtedly go to appeal, so we must ensure our objections are absolutely cast iron.'

Cllr Russell thought the need for large-scale development in Teignmouth had now been largely discounted, with most of the new homes to be earmarked for the Newton Abbot area.

Such schemes were 'big money' for developers, said Cllr Russell, and now that the Teignbridge development framework plan had been rejected as 'unsound' by the l From page 1

government, planning policy was in limbo. Builders were understandably coming forward with all sorts of projects to build up a land bank for when the economy picked up.

M Baker Ltd has applied for permission, and the scheme is similar to a previous application which was rejected on appeal a few years ago.

About 30 residents turned up at Bitton House, but there was no representation from the developer.

Cllr Russell explained that the developers had already met councillors to outline their project, and she believed the developers were 'going by the book'.

Brian Elver, from Teignmouth Residents Against the Destruction of the Environment by Development (TRADED), emphasised that the site was in a coastal preservation area, and an area of great landscape value, and if built on its beauty would be lost for ever. Brownfield sites should be built on first.

Protected species such as cirl buntings, pipistrelle bats, and barn owls lived there, and a possible bronze age burial mound with a scattering of flints had been discovered. The county archaeologist insisted nothing should be built until a specialised dig had been carried out.

The estate would mean a big increase in cars in the town, where pollution levels were already dangerous high in places. The traffic would flow onto busy New Road, where there had been three recent fatalities.

"We have spoken to many local residents, and virtually every one is against the plan. Over 130 have written letters of objection," Mr Elver told the meeting.

Several residents living below the site had concerns about the effect on springs and the water table in the area, which was already causing problems.

Phil Heesem of St Michaels Road said: "Water drains through my property from the fields all the time. Such a development could make it worse."