TOWER House, 11 Courtenay Park and the terrace, was one of Newton Abbot's architectural gems, a neighbour claimed. Sean Garner, objecting, said the properties dated back to 1854 and any alterations would adversely affect the street scene. Hallmark Developments SW Ltd had applied for change of use, alterations and a two-storey extension to form a new dental surgery, and the demolition of an existing single storey extension and garage, internal alterations and two-storey extension to form a new dental surgery. A site inspection had been held. Mr Garner said the application contravened planning policy and the footprint was significantly increased. 'A two-storey property would be over-bearing. 'It would increase the number of vehicles and I noticed two cars on your site visit had to be parked illegally,' said Mr Garner. He maintained that no new dental patients were created from the development. For the company, Ken Harwood said it proposed to remove the aluminium windows and replace them with sash windows, remove the crazy paved front garden and replace it with something more appropriate, while the rear eyesore extension would be replaced. Cllr Shirley Maddicott, who called for refusal, said the dental practice had said one new dentist would be taken on for 2,000 patients, and that would be over three years. 'After that it could become private and we could have 12,000 patients on the waiting list,' she said. Cllr Keith Smith said that originally there was a two-storey extension on the building and this would be bringing it back to its original character. 'I think the proposal is of an exceptional design and would improve the facade of the building. 'I understand the highways objections but the building is within 100 metres of three forms of public transport,' he stated. Welcoming the application, Cllr Brian Berman said it would bring improved facilities for dental treatment, including for children and children with special needs. 'This would be a tremendous asset to the town,' said Cllr Berman. Seven members of the site inspection team considered it acceptable and two found it unacceptable. Members approved the application on a 17-4 vote with one abstention.




