Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan 2025 Online Version and Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 1324

Received: 19/12/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Exeter

The draft Local Plan’s housing target of 400 dwellings per annum is far below the calculated need of 950 dwellings per annum, making the plan unsound.

Support

Representation ID: 1325

Received: 19/12/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Exeter

The provision of 80,000 m² of high‑quality, sustainable employment space in the draft plan is welcomed.

Support

Representation ID: 1326

Received: 19/12/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Exeter

The overall aim to deliver affordable homes for Torbay residents is recognised as a crucial objective. A single percentage for affordable housing delivery, with flexibility in tenure and a clear viability pathway, should be adopted. The Local Plan should avoid cliff-edge steps that deter medium-sized sites and retain proportional review mechanisms to ensure deliverability.

Support

Representation ID: 1327

Received: 19/12/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Exeter

The approach taken in Strategic Policy CERS for climate‑change mitigation is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 1328

Received: 19/12/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Exeter

Notwithstanding, Policy CER1 (Net zero carbon development standards) exceeds the sustainability requirements for new dwellings beyond that set out in the Future Homes Standards and current building regulations. CER1 requires “all developments … to achieve net zero carbon emissions” in addition to the baseline reductions, with a local carbon-offset fund only as a last resort. The Future Homes Standard (FHS) aims for “zero-carbon ready” homes, not net-zero operational carbon on completion.

It would be advisable for Torbay Council to state that new residential development should comply with current building regulations and FHS. There is no evidence provided in the consultation document which outlines why new build residential development should not just comply with these existing stringent measures.

It is recommended that Torbay Council aligns its net-zero and renewable energy measures with the national Future Homes Standard trajectory. Rather than prescribing specific technology ratios, the Local Plan should focus on performance-based outcomes and allow for viability flexibility. This approach ensures that sustainability targets are achievable and do not compromise the deliverability of new homes.

Object

Representation ID: 1329

Received: 19/12/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Exeter

Delivering ‘integral infrastructure’ to any proposed development to make it acceptable is a standard approach, and this should be properly outlined in any allocation and/or through pre-application discussions at application stage. These works need to be directly linked to the impact of the proposed development as per national planning guidance2.
Draft Policy IN1 (Prioritisation of planning obligations) of the emerging Local Plan sets out a cascade of priorities for planning obligations. Planning obligations like affordable housing are expected and can help deliver sustainable development objectives. Notwithstanding, additional planning obligations can add unacceptable costs to developments and impact a scheme’s viability. An independent assessment of viability, as set out in the policy, can be used when viability is a concern and options to remove planning obligations are then explored. This can add time and cost to a project and the determination of a planning application and should not be a common process. There is concerns that the level of planning obligations is becoming too onerous on new development. As such, it is requested that all potential planning obligations are independently assessed for impact on viability. Reference to types of planning obligations that place excessive financial demands on new development should not be included or pursued through planning application discussions.
For drainage and SuDS, it is proposed that the Local Plan replaces any blanket brownfield ‘betterment’ percentage with a policy of no-net-increase in peak runoff, or evidence-led betterment where feasible. Additionally, below-ground SuDS should be permitted where space constraints exist, ensuring practical and effective water management solutions.
Planning obligations should be transparent, with a clear infrastructure cost list and avoidance of open-ended administration charges. For example the 5% administration fee for developer contributions is an arbitrary and unreasonable amount to ask for. Deferred review triggers must remain objective and bounded to ensure fairness and predictability for developers.

Comment

Representation ID: 1332

Received: 19/12/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Exeter

Keep Biodiversity Net Gain at the 10 % national baseline, avoid stacking on‑site ecological features that compromise design, and allow off‑site canopy‑equivalent tree replacement.