SOUTH Hams Council is once again asking for the views of experts and the public on plans to build a large potato processing plant near Churchstow, almost a year after district councillors gave the project the green light.

In December 2013 AJ Lidstone & Son asked South Hams Council for permission to erect four large agricultural buildings, an agriculturally tied dwelling, an office and to create an access road.

The company wanted to build on a field to the southeast of Bantham Cross, which it said would be a more 'suitable and sustainable' location than its current site near Galmpton. Lidstone said the plans would reduce substantially traffic movement as the spuds could be graded, stored, washed and packed at the same site.

Although Churchstow Parish Council, and many in the village, objected to the plans, South Hams Council's development management committee passed the application in April last year.

Objectors raised many different issues, including noise, ­dangerous access onto the A379, the number of listed buildings

in the vicinity and the site's ­location in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Churchstow resident Richard Martin unintentionally took on the role of lead objector to the plans.

'I never expected to get so involved in planning law,' he said, 'but you have to inform yourself if you want to achieve anything. This application should never have got beyond the stage of everyone standing in the field and looking around.

'In my research into this, I've found that the AONB should be given the highest level of protection and listed buildings not far behind. In this case, both seem to have been marginalised.'

Since last April Mr Martin and fellow objectors in the village have been busy. In early summer they approached the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, who in July came back with a decision to not 'call in' the planning consents. In August Mr Pickles issued a screening direction, concluding that an environmental impact assessment was not ­necessary, although the case was 'finely balanced'.

In November objectors sought the opinion of Robert Mc-Cracken QC as to whether the decision to grant permission had been lawful.

Based on a thorough examination of the case, he concluded that it had not, and that if it was allowed to stand it would be vulnerable to judicial review.

The villagers submitted the QC's opinion to South

Hams Council shortly before Christmas, asking it not to issue Section 106 notices – the final step in granting consent – until the legal view had been considered.

The council then sought legal advice of its own from barrister Hugh Richards, who agreed that permission granted as things stood would be vulnerable to judicial review. He recommended that English Heritage and the Environment Agency should be consulted before any permission was issued. He criticised some aspects of the planning officer's report that had been prepared for councillors prior to the April decision.

Mr Martin said: 'While we all feel emotional about the impact of this massive development on the edge of the village, at the end of the day it's the lawfulness or otherwise of planning that decides whether or not it goes ahead.

'Had this QC's opinion come back with nothing unlawful, we wouldn't be taking it further.

'However, none of this would have happened if we hadn't taken the QC's opinion.

'It's a serious situation that South Hams Council, had we not been involved, would have granted unlawful permission – we think that's very important, and we believe it's in the wider public interest to make everyone aware of the possibility of this happening.

'The point at which issues can be avoided is at the pre-application stage. That's the bigger ­picture – that councils need quality decision-making at that stage.

'That way they save the council being exposed to the costs of appeals or a judicial review. We'll go to a judicial review if these issues are not addressed.

'This is not meant to be a ­confrontation, we're just trying to make sure the right thing is done by everyone. The most ­logical outcome would be to find an alternative site.

'None of this is personal and we respect that the council ­planning team has done the best it can.

'This will affect so many ­people's lives. If you're going to put a blight on the village with noise, you need a good reason to do that to 250 people.'

A spokesman for South Hams Council said: 'It's become ­necessary to carry out a re-consultation process. Environment Agency and English Heritage views will be sought. The application has been re-advertised as "affecting the setting of a listed building". Any new representations will be duly considered.

'All the original representations will be taken into account when the application is again presented to the development management committee, ­possibly on March 28.

'We consider the pre-application process to have been successful and do not know on what basis the objectors have claimed it wasn't.'