THE National Trust is to forge ahead with controversial plans to open a Dunster Castle café after researchers concluded the facility would not stop people visiting the village.

Worried traders had accused the charity of threatening their livelihoods amid fears that the move would turn the grade one castle into a one-stop visitor attraction and lead tourists to bypass the historic medieval village.

The results of a study commissioned by the trust into the potential impact a café might have on visitor numbers to both the castle and the village were revealed to a small group of community representatives, local councillors and traders on Tuesday, followed by a presentation to the public yesterday (Thursday).

Nearly 400 people were interviewed by Barnstaple-based Turquoise Thinking, as well as a number of local businesses and organisations.

Among the key findings were:

l Nearly 90 per cent of visitors said having refreshments at the castle would not affect their likelihood to visit the village.

l A total of 82 per cent of castle visitors surveyed also went into the village, most - 62 per cent - to 'look around'.

l About one in four visitors to the castle said their visit would have been more enjoyable if refreshments were available.

l Most people were attracted to Dunster because of the whole package - the castle and the village - although 79 per cent cited the castle as the main reason for their visit.

Although the conclusions give the trust the evidence it needs for pressing ahead with the project, researchers have admitted that a castle café would have an impact on the existing catering outlets in the village, with 66 per cent of those surveyed saying they would probably use it.

However, Lisa Ollerenshaw from Turquoise Thinking told Tuesday's meeting that the fragmentation within the village that the café proposal had sparked would ultimately be more damaging.

She said emotions had been running high, petitions had been launched and there was a perception that the trust had simply gone for the easiest option rather than looking at other ways to increase its revenue.

"This fragmentation will ultimately affect the Dunster visitor experience," she warned. "It is snowballing at the moment - that will be the key economic impact."

She urged all stakeholders - businesses and organisations - to adopt a unified stance in a bid to 'grow' the visitor market, exploiting ideas put forward to increase the number of specialised and themed events in Dunster.

"There is a unified belief among the stakeholders that Dunster should be promoted as a package but more of a concerted effort is need," said Ms Ollerenshaw.

"The existing promotion of events is disjointed and there is a feeling of them and us.

"Everyone recognises the need for different parties to work together and be creative to increase visitor numbers - one vision, one team is what is needed."

The trust has said it will be examining the options of providing a facility within the grounds or "off-site", around a five to ten-minute walk away, having totally rejected the idea of a catering kiosk.

Castle property manager William Wake said the trust was conscious that its plans were sensitive and controversial.

He said the sensitive setting, planning considerations and costs would have to be taken into account.

"There may be an impact on some of the village cafés and this is ultimately about healthy competition and customer choice," he said.

"We're looking at providing a café in response to customer demand. The single most consistent comment from visitors over the years has been the lack of refreshments on-site and although we direct them to the village, some want the choice of having a snack at the castle."

The trust believes a café could increase visitor numbers by about 10,000 a year and Mr Wake said that would also boost visitor numbers to the village.

He said the castle - given to the trust in 1976 by Colonel Sir Walter Luttrell with no endowment or estate to provide for its financial upkeep - cost around £550,000 a year to keep open.

"We believe a café, along with a number of other plans to improve visitor experience, including a new winter garden, will help us do that.

"But we still need to examine the most cost-effective option which will provide what our customers want and also fit within this historic and sensitive setting."

Business leaders and local councillors at Tuesday's meeting urged the trust to re-think its ideas.

Dunster parish councillor and village businessman Paul Toogood said he was "not too impressed" by the research and believed that more visitors than the survey suggested would use the café once it was there.

"When you make your decision, do not underestimate the damage that you could do to this village and community where we all love to live," he said.

And Christine Moore - a founder member of the Dunster Action Group which has collected a 10,000-signature petition against the café - said the catering outlet which stood to be most seriously affected by the proposal was one of the trust's own tenants.

"Our invisible chief executive did say it," said Cllr Davies.

He said there were serious concerns and queries that had still to be satisfied.

The current representatives of both Mansell and Cyril Sweett had been "drip feeding" information and seemed unable to explain the adjustments in the previously agreed sums.

"We are owners of the public purse and we should not just write these sums off simply because we have the power to do it."

Cllr Jon Freeman told the committee that he had a background in engineering and was concerned over a number of items.

These included the need to replace the electricity substation and the Tenos report - required to justify the contractor's design - which he described as "generic piffle".

"I wouldn't have paid £10 for it, let alone £10,347," said Cllr Freeman.

He also questioned why the heating system for the new offices had been changed from woodchip to wood pellets, which increased running costs, and claimed the specification for air conditioning in the council chamber was a mistake.

Mr Dyer had said the air conditioning was needed because the chamber was designed to hold 60-plus people and necessitated an air circulation rate of 12 changes per minute by mechanical means.

But Cllr Freeman said this meant an air change every five seconds.

"This is a mistake - it should be 12 changes an hour. We are paying for a system which is 60 times the size it needs to be."

Cllr Steven Pugsley, who proposed the cabinet's decision should be referred to the council, said councillors could not be satisfied that there were no outstanding issues.

He said although the overspend might well be within acceptable tolerance levels but it could include unnecessary items.

"I believe there are legitimate areas to investigate but also we need to learn lessons for the future."