Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan 2025 Online Version and Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 477

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

Policy TO5: New holiday parks and extensions to existing facilities, (pages 131 – 133)
It is difficult to see how holiday parks are, in principle, able to be extended in area. This proposal implies there are undeveloped areas suitable for development, which could instead include residential development and help contribute towards the OAN.

Support

Representation ID: 478

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

Policy TO7: Tourism investment and monitoring contributions, (page 134)
Majority of approach is fine but intention to seek contributions where there is a loss of tourism facilities in some instances may not be practical, helpful to see how contributions will be calculated.

‘Proposals involving the loss of tourism may result in a negative economic impact. In such instances a contribution may be sought to mitigate the loss of employment. This will be based on the net impact of proposals, and other public benefits such as improvements to the built or natural environment, ….’ (para 4.74)

Support

Representation ID: 480

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

Town Centre Regeneration Visions emphasis is recognised, as per Policy TC2: Development in Town Centres, pages 143-144 together with other policies, only caveat is potential time-consuming factor in terms of preparation and implications for development programme flowing from plan.

Support

Representation ID: 481

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

Policy TC9: Town Centre Regeneration Contributions, pages 152-153. Interesting approach, if workable. Detailed impacts from new development proposals of 4% on town centres are considered ‘significant’ and require some form of contribution.

Object

Representation ID: 483

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

Policy SC4: Sustainable food production and land protection. (third para)
‘Development which would result in the detriment to or loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2, or 3a) will only be permitted where there is an overriding need for the development and it is demonstrated by the applicant that it cannot be accommodated on lower grade land.’

Policy requires a site size threshold criterion. It appears to prioritise agricultural land (grades 1-3) above housing provision, potential flaw, given the lack of housing delivered by the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 485

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

Strategic Policy INS: Sustainable infrastructure (first & sixth paras)
‘A range of physical, social and green infrastructure will be sought in order to help Torbay grow in a sustainable, healthy, safe, and prosperous way.

New infrastructure should be provided in the most environmentally friendly way possible, consistent with meeting communities’ needs, safety and amenity. Infrastructure should encourage healthier lifestyles and provide recreational opportunities by providing for walking, cycling and other recreational opportunities.’

Given the importance of providing infrastructure to support new development it would be valid to change ‘should’ to ‘will’ in the above criteria.

Object

Representation ID: 486

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

We note that all development proposals should be proportionate to their scale and type, designed to be resilient to climate change and minimise greenhouse gas emissions. An amendment is suggested to clarify this requirement. Additionally, we recognise the importance of minimising material use and waste, and promoting a circular economy, but further guidance is needed to specify what developers are required to do, as current explanations are only partial.

Support

Representation ID: 487

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

Policy CER4: Renewable and low carbon energy generation
The stance of CER4 is fine but does not go much beyond NPPF in relation to paras 165-167. It would be improved by including something more specific to Torbay about future renewable energy development

Support

Representation ID: 488

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

We note that development in the countryside must not harm the South Hams SAC or other habitats and should consider the effects on Greater Horseshoe Bats, calcareous grassland, and the SAC's integrity. We also recognise the need to assess cumulative impacts of multiple developments and explore developer contributions to mitigate recreational pressures. To improve clarity, it is suggested to replace ‘should’ with ‘will’ in these statements, indicating a stronger obligation to protect these interests.

Object

Representation ID: 489

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council

Policy L4: Valued landscapes (fourth para)
‘Locally valued landscape is not limited to the undeveloped coast and may be identified through the Torbay Landscape Character Assessment.’

Extract above lacks clarity. The “explanation” text is helpful, setting out that valued landscapes include but are not limited to the South Devon National Landscape and its setting, undeveloped coast, land within or in the setting of a designated heritage asset, urban landscapes such as Local Green Spaces (LGS) and Urban Landscape Protection Areas (ULPAs). However, these are all protected through other plan policies and the policy appears to duplicate this and be unnecessary.