The front runner in the race to build a new supermarket in Wells fell at the last hurdle on Wednesday.

Sainsbury's was refused permission to build what would have been the city's largest supermarket.

The company had wanted to build the store on a site off Strawberry Way currently occupied by R Tincknell and Sons.

Mendip District Council was accused of "having a love-fest with Tesco" and of wanting to sell its land off Priory Road to Waitrose.

Fewer than half of the 21 councillors who sit on Mendip's planning committee turned up to vote on whether Sainsbury's should be allowed to build a new supermarket.

Of those only seven voted, and the rejection of the plans was passed by four votes to three.

Referring to the number of no-show councillors, Cllr Dick Skidmore suggested that councillors on the committee had "not wanted to put their heads above the parapet" and be forced to make a decision.

He said that in the past he would have liked to have seen permission granted for Tesco and Sainsbury to "tear each other to pieces", but on this occasion he went with the officers' recommendation to refuse permission.

The refusal was made on the grounds that the site was too far from the city centre, did not fit with the current development plan and provided too much shopping density.

Mendip planning officer Matthew Williams admitted that the proposed development on Princes Road by developer Centros was "no longer on the table".

It is the first time that an admission has been made by the council that these plans were dead in the water.

But Mr Williams added: "We are aware of retailer interest for Princes Road and Priory road.

"Allowing this scheme would prejudice the development of Princes Road and Priory Road."

An application for housing to the north of the site, linked with the plans for a supermarket, was approved.

Speaking after the meeting a spokesman for R Tincknell & Son Ltd and Sainsbury's said: "We are clearly disappointed by the planning committee meeting which refused the planning application. With the result decided by four votes to three, and with three abstentions, it was very close.

"And it came despite members acknowledging widespread support for the proposal among the Wells community on the basis of more choice, competition, jobs, economic development and investment in local business.

"We would like to thank people for their support and will be reviewing our options in light of the decision."