Agenda item

Planning Applications

To see Letters of Representation and further supplementary information relating to any of the planning applications on the agenda, please select the following link and enter the relevant Reference number:





The Committee proceeded to consider the report that had been prepared by the relevant Planning Officer on each of the following Applications and considered also the comments of the Town and Parish Councils together with other representations received, which were  summarised within the report.


(a)  Application No: 2844/22/FUL     Ward: Okehampton South


Site Address:  2, Crediton Road, Okehampton 


Development: Alterations to roof structure & associated works


Recommendation: Conditional Approval



1.      Standard time limit

2.      Adhere to plans

3.      Adhere to ecology Report

4.      Installation of bat and bird box on completion of development

5.      Details of fibre cement slates to be submitted and agreed in writing with LPA

6.      Details of proposed Upvc windows to be submitted and agreed in writing by LPA



The Planning Officer took members through the report and stated that the key issues were:


·           Visual impact on the setting of the conversation area (site within CA buffer-zone)

·           The site is not Listed nor within the setting of a Listed Building

·           Neighbour Amenity

·           Design & Materials

·           Environmental Hazards

·           Ecology


Since the publishing of the officer’s report the agent had submitted details of the colour and type of roofing tile and these were acceptable and in keeping with the conservation area, therefore condition 5 in the report was no longer required. In debate Members                            commented on the key issues identified by the Planning Officer and on the positives of bringing the building back into use.


Committee Decision: Conditional Approval



1.    Standard time limit

2.    Adherence to plans

3.    Adherence to Ecology Report

4.    Installation of bat and bird box on completion of development

5.    Details of proposed UPVC windows to be submitted and agreed in writing by LPA





(b)   Application No: 2603/22/FUL    Ward: Tavistock North


Site Address: West Devon Borough Council


Development: Erection of 3 flagpoles 8 meters high to replace Single 8 meter high flagpole


Recommendation: Conditional Approval



1.      Time

2.      Accordance with plans

3.      Carbon reduction implementations




Objector: Hilary Moule

Supporter: Chris Brook


In her introduction, the Planning Officer made a correction to the report stating that reference was made to a Neighbourhood Plan for Tavistock when in fact there was no adopted Neighbourhood Plan. There were also additional representations that had been received since the agenda had been published.


The new points raised were summarised as follows:


·           Concerns remained that this application represented a waste of taxpayers money;

·           The proposal was not considered to meet the aims of the Council regarding carbon reduction (particularly the use of fibreglass);

·           Loss of the foliage mentioned by officers and residents that

screened the proposal had died back over the past 6 months, however the site was still being described as not visible from the road or nearest dwellings;

·           A number of Councillors had been contacted about concerns and did not respond;

·           The report concluded that the impact on residents would not be significant but this was refuted by the objector who believed that the noise impact from apparatus associated with the flagpole would be ‘considerable’ for the nearest neighbouring residents.


During questions, the Planning Officer stated that the cost of the flagpoles was not a material planning reason.


The Objector stated that she lived 20 metres from the proposed site for the flagpoles. She noted that the wildlife report was missing from the officers published report.  There were two species of owl and bats in the vicinity and this could have an effect on them.


She further stated that

·           the amenity loss would be significant to her with noise and disturbance. 

·           There were two flagpoles in the town and a redundant one on the corner of Quant Park and asked why more were needed. 

·           The existing flagpole was currently buffered by trees, however the site of the proposed ones had no significant trees.

·           The production of fibreglass was toxic and environmentally unfriendly.

·           The 12 representations to oppose the application cited the inappropriate use of taxpayers money. No Officer or Councillor had questioned the finances used to prepare this planning application let alone its implementation.


The supporter explained about:


·           The community and civic role of the Council.

·           The issues around flying more than one flag on a flagpole.

·           Having three flagpole would mean the council could represent its communities and make statements where appropriate.

·           The constraints as to where to site the flagpoles.

·           A rubber weight would be used at the top of the flagpole to stop the noise from the halyard.

·           The existing flagpole would be removed.


A Member asked why it had not been brought before the Hub Committee, in the past Members are normally consulted.  The Monitoring Officer said it was right for the Member to raise the question, but it was a matter to be dealt with elsewhere and outside of the Development Management & Licensing Committee.


In response to further questions, the supporter explained the choice of fibreglass poles was due to them being lighter and more slender than a wooden flagpole, giving an easier installation. He explained the constraints on site meant that the proposed position was the best compromise.


The Head of Development Management confirmed there was a report on the impact of the development on the trees and in the report no concerns were raised on the impact on wildlife.


In debate Members raised concerns over noise pollution. The Head of Development Management confirmed noise was a material planning consideration under DEV1 of the Joint Local Plan. The Monitoring Officer explained to Members that whilst noise nuisance was a matter of planning judgement there had to be sufficient evidence to back it up.



Committee Decision: Refusal



The proposal will have harmful effects and an unacceptable impact on the amenity of local residents by reason of noise disturbance and pollution arising from the apparatus associated with the flying of flags from the proposed flagpoles contrary to Policies DEV1 and DEV 2 (1) of the Joint Local Plan.


Supporting documents: