Minutes of a meeting of the WEST DEVON DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & LICENSING COMMITTEE held on TUESDAY the18th day of July 2023 at 10.00am in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILWORTHY PARK



Present:        Cllr R Cheadle– Chairman

                      Cllr T Southcott – Vice Chair


Cllr A Cunningham                Cllr U Mann

                              Cllr S Guthrie                       Cllr J Moody

Cllr P Kimber                         Cllr C Mott

Cllr T Leech                           Cllr S Wakeham


Head of Development Management (JH)

Principal Planning Officer (CS)

Senior Planning Officer (Heritage) (GL)

Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal Practice (DF)

Democratic Services Officer (KH)  




Apologies were received from Cllr N Jory for who Cllr P Kimber substituted.




 For the record, Cllr Mann declared that she had been Chairman of Tavistock Town Council’s Development Management Committee when application 4087/22/HHO was heard at their Committee meeting. She declared that she was of an open mind and had not predetermined this application and therefore remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote thereon.



                      There was no urgent business brought forward to this meeting.




The minutes from the Committee meeting held on 28 February 2023 were approved as a true and correct record.




                     The Committee proceeded to consider the reports that had been prepared by the relevant Planning Officers on the following applications and considered also the comments of the Town Council together with other representations received, which were listed within the presented agenda report and summarised below:


                     (a) Application No. 4087/22/HHO        Ward: Tavistock North


Site Address: 61 Parkwood Road, Tavistock PL19 0HH


                           Development: Householder application for alterations to

                            existing building including rear/side extension & roof conversion.


                           Recommendation: Refusal

                           Reasons for refusal (updated from published Officer report)


  1. The proposal is considered to be an unacceptable development in terms of its siting, design, size and scale. The site forms the end of a row of well-preserved traditional buildings within the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site. The proposal introduces new built forms to both the rear and side of the dwellinghouse that would be visible within the public realm, erode the distinctive, traditional appearance of the row of dwellings causing less than substantial harm to the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site and character and appearance of the Conservation Area, without public benefit.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SPT11, DEV20, DEV21 and DEV22 of the adopted Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034; Tavistock Conservation Area Appraisal 2009; World Heritage Site Management Plan 2020-2025, and the National Planning Policy Framework.


  1. The proposed two-storey rear extension is an over-bearing addition that would overlook the neighbour’s amenity space to the rear and encroach on their privacy contrary to policy DEV1 of the adopted Plymouth and South West Joint Local Plan 2014-2034; National Planning Policy Framework and the advice contained within appendix 1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Document (adopted July 2020).       


  1. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is an adequate drainage solution contrary to policy DEV35 of the adopted Plymouth and South West Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 and National Planning Policy Framework.  



                           Key issues for Committee consideration:


·         Visual impact on the World Heritage Site, Conservation Area & Public Realm

·         The size and mass of the structure in relation to the quality of the build form and the authenticity of the World Heritage site and the wider setting.

·         Visual impact on the setting of multiple non designated heritage assets including the host dwelling and the setting of Listed Buildings surrounding the Foundry.

·         Neighbour amenity – impacts of dominance, over-shadowing and loss of privacy.


                           One Speaker registered:


                          Applicant: Mrs F McCarter


                           In Mrs McCarter’s presentation she stated that they were

                           contributing to keeping the building in its original state by proposing

                           to use breathable materials and bringing back wooden sash

                           windows. As a family they would like for the dwelling to be their

                           family home for years to come and they would use favourable

                           materials to lessen the impact on the neighbouring




                           In debate the Principal Planning Officer explained that overlooking

                           was a material planning consideration. Policy Dev 1 outlined

                           neighbourhood amenities and loss of privacy and over shadowing

                           with bulk massing.

                           She explained that the use of obscure glass could overcome

                           overlooking but it depended upon the intended use of the room.


                           The Heritage Officer stated that paragraph 194

                           of the National Planning Policy Framework expected the applicant

                           to provide a heritage statement. He stated that all of the alterations

                           to adjoining properties were carried out prior to the Conservation

                           designation and prior to the World Heritage Site inscription. The

                           application site was a well-preserved example of the original


                           The World Heritage Site Management Plan recognised that over

                           time changes happened to buildings within the World Heritage Site

                           but it also stated that opportunities to put back and restore should

                           be explored and looked at.



                           Committee Decision: Refusal as per the updated





(b)  Application No. 0891/23/LBC         Ward: Tavistock North


Site Address: 73b Bannawell Street, Tavistock


                           Development: Listed building consent for provision of natural slate

                           roof to main roof of dwelling in place of fibre cement slate roof and

                           repairs and capping of two chimneys.



                                   Recommendation: Conditional approval


                           Conditions: (in full below)

                           1 Standard time limit

                           2 Accords with plan

                           3 Slate type and fixing


                           Key issues for consideration:

-       Effect on listed building

-       Effect on Tavistock Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site


                           The Planning Heritage Officers took Members through the

                           application and explained that it had been presented to the

                           Committee due to it being an application from an officer employed

                           by the Council.


                           There we no registered speakers for this application. 


                                 There was no debate for this application.



Committee Decision: Conditional Consent as per the recommended conditions in the report.




                     The Head of Development Management took Members through the Appeals Update. In so doing, it was noted that Application 0723/21/FUL, Land Plymouth Road, Tavistock for 44 residential dwellings and 0.76ha of commercial land was upheld. As a result, the Committee recognised that the applicant had two planning permissions on the land now.




                        There were no questions for the Head of Development Management arising from the agenda item.


(The Meeting ended at 11.00am)