Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3422

Received: 22/09/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Whilst Teignbridge supports the protection of best and most versatile agricultural land, consideration should also be given to the significant housing challenges identified
within the Plan area. A more balanced policy approach may assist in ensuring that all reasonable development opportunities can be properly assessed on their merits.
Whilst a balanced approach is needed to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land, given the lack of housing delivered by the plan, it is suggested that the
policy should include a site size threshold criterion, or a more balanced approach to the provision of other benefits, such as housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 3423

Received: 22/09/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

The stance of CER4 is fine but policy ambition does not go much beyond the NPPF. It would be improved by including something more specific to Torbay about future renewable energy development.

Comment

Representation ID: 3424

Received: 22/09/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

‘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. Furthermore, the Landscape Character Assessment does not highlight any particular areas of local valued
landscapes, so it is unclear to the reader which areas are considered to form locally valued landscapes. Given the lack of housing allocated in the plan, a less restrictive
approach would be considered more balanced.

Comment

Representation ID: 3425

Received: 22/09/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

NC1 would benefit from some flexibility, through protection being commensurate with the importance of the site – e.g. would development be refused if it caused minor adverse impact on an “OSWI”?

Comment

Representation ID: 3426

Received: 22/09/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

It is not clear why specific reference is made to Cirl Buntings, given the inclusion of European Protected Species (EPS), Nationally Protected Species, Section 41 Priority Species, or Devon Local Priority and Special Species in the opening line.

Comment

Representation ID: 3427

Received: 22/09/2026

Respondent: Teignbridge District Council (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

‘Under the BHL12 ‘traffic light’ system, a development proposal will be supported by the council when it secures as many ‘green lights’ as possible.’
This part of the policy lacks clarity and should set the standard required or the standard below which would be refused.