So what were the Issues?

3.14    Analysing the findings of the various consultation exercises and local evidence, the NPSG drafted a summary of the key issues for the Neighbourhood Plan. The findings were grouped into the four themes set out below, distributed to the focus group and included in the Parish Council’s record of events.

The key issues identified by the questionnaire, public meetings and other representations were as follows:  

Residential Development  

  • Whether the sites already identified at Crapstone & Buckland in WDBC’s SHLAA  (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) offer the best place for housing to meet WDBC’s target (as expressed in ‘Our Plan’) of 20 houses between 2015 - 2031.
  • If not, where should housing ‘be permitted’? Would ‘random’ placement be better than ‘estate’ placement?  
  • What type of housing best meets local needs? The questionnaire suggested a need to better cater for young families and ‘down-sizers’ and this was re-enforced at the housing day.  
  • Whether some ‘accommodation’ could be reached between WDBC and DNPA to encourage housing to be located adjacent to services? This is relevant because Yelverton, which has the majority of Parish services, is within the National Park (which have no specific target to provide housing in the Parish) whereas Crapstone and Buckland, which have few services, are within WDBC’s ambit, who seek to manage housing development through targets. Without such ‘accommodation’, the Parish Council is concerned that housing might predominantly be built where there are few services, and few housing will be built where services are more available.  

Economic Development  

  • Whether the proposed development of the Yelverton Business Park (at Crapstone) was warranted? This proposal emanated from WDBC’s SHLAA and was proposed as a policy within their draft ‘Our Plan’. As this caused a significant reaction from local residents, the Neighbourhood Plan agreed to undertake a specific review (which is at Annex H in the 'Download' section).
  • Whether car parking at Yelverton could be improved. This largely stems from a decision, some years ago, by the owner of two car parks (at Leg of Mutton & St Paul’s church) to introduce parking charges. This resulted in people either parking ‘elsewhere’ (including on the open moor and in residential areas) or avoiding the shops altogether rather than incurring a charge. The Parish Coun-cil used the questionnaire to ask if a modest addition to the precept to allow the Parish to manage the car parks and remove charges would be welcomed.    
  • Whether part of the land at Leg of Mutton (to the South of the car park - currently ‘scrub’ might be suited to a mixed development (part commercial, part residential, part community). Such development might complement the established retail part of Yelverton, play a part in meeting future residential development and provide additional community facilities.
  • The need for a restriction on converting land from 'employment' to ‘non employment' (ie residential)
  • The need to control the use of Brown Field land (to ensure it is used for development ahead of open land


  • The fragility of transport services in some villages, and what alternatives may be available. 
  • The desire for some form of community centre in Crapstone  and how this might be provided. The questionnaire was ambivalent on this issue so a specific community event was organised to elicit the views of local residents. This confirmed that some form of community facility would be welcomed.
  • Broadband coverage in some areas of the parish was poor
  • The need for car parking control such that development (residential and economic) is not compromised by a lack of car parking.
  • The need for adequate footpaths (and where possible, cycle paths) to discour-age car use and ensure that those who are less mobile are not disadvantaged by development.


  • The flooding risk at Milton Combe and whether this might be exacerbated by development in Crapstone on ‘SHLAA’ sites (which lie above the village) and to an extent, at Buckland where a similar situation could exist. 
  • Better dog excrement management in public areas. 
  • The safety of cycling on the A386 (the main road between Plymouth and Tavistock) and whether possible alternatives might be available.
  • The protection of sites of historic interest.
  • The preservation of local character by ensuring that any new development should contribute to the local character by either retaining or reproviding items that represent that local character (such as Devon hedges)
  • Whether support should be given to renewable energy projects provided these would not impact adversely on their surroundings.