Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

Support

Representation ID: 3383

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Soundness

In accordance with Section PM15 of the NPPF, the soundness tests must be applied to an emerging plan.

We consider the Plan to be sound in principle and support it in relation to the tests regarding a Positively Prepared and Effective Plan. However, at the time of writing, the Regulation 19 consultation was not accompanied by a revised Water Cycle Study (WCS), Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), the technical methodology explaining the Coastal Change Management Area (CCMA) or Coastal Vulnerability Zone designation, or an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).

As such, and with concerns raised at Regulation 18 relating to water resources, water quality, and some allocated sites remaining within the coastal zone and flood zones, we consider this may bring into question the soundness of the Plan in relation to it being consistent with national policy and appropriate, particularly regarding whether the proposed growth is sustainable and adequately evidenced.

Relevant Sections of the NPPF
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

Paragraph CC1

Development plans should:

“...propose development patterns through their spatial strategy and allocations which:

ii) Avoid increased vulnerability and improve resilience to the effects of climate change (including through providing for necessary infrastructure improvements and the future relocation of homes and other uses where public safety would be at risk, for example as a consequence of coastal change).”

Chapter 18, F1

“Assessing flood risk for plan-making. In order to manage development in ways which minimise the risk of flooding to people and property, development plans should:

a. Be informed by an up-to-date Strategic Flood Risk Assessment which considers current and future flood risk from all sources, including cumulative impacts in, or affecting, areas susceptible to flooding.”

Coastal Change Management Areas (CCMA)

F3(2)

“Inappropriate development in vulnerable coastal areas should be avoided when identifying suitable locations for development, so that risks arising from coastal change are not exacerbated. In order to do this development plans should:

a. Identify as a Coastal Change Management Area any area likely to be affected by physical changes to the coast, estuaries or tidal rivers, over the next century.”

Water Cycle Study (WCS)

W1

“Planning for energy and water.

The development plan should be informed by early engagement between the relevant plan-making authority, utility providers, regulators and network operators, so that there is a clear understanding of energy supply and network capacity, water supply, drainage and wastewater capacity, and associated requirements for additional infrastructure provision.

This engagement should consider the impacts of planned growth, changing consumption patterns and climate change, as well as relevant strategic infrastructure plans, and be used to address potential constraints to development arising from current or anticipated infrastructure shortfalls.”

Pollution

P1(1)(a)(iii)

“Development proposals will not cause unacceptable levels of pollution, either alone or in combination with other pollution sources, taking into account communities which may be particularly vulnerable to its effects, such as children and older people, as well as habitats and species which may be vulnerable to pollution.”

We consider that, without the full evidence required to satisfy the above areas of consideration, these aspects are not currently demonstrated to accord with national guidance or with the principles of sustainable development.

Mitigation

In order to overcome these issues:

At the time of writing, the Environment Agency remains in discussion with Torbay Council regarding completion of the above documents and is currently forming its response to the recently published updated Water Cycle Study.

We anticipate that the SFRA Levels 1 and 2, including the Sequential and Exception Tests, will be acceptable. However, detailed comments on individual sites in relation to flood risk are included at Appendix 1 below.

We have previously advised on the data and methodology for designation of the Coastal Change Management Area (CCMA) and have been verbally appraised of the approach taken, which appears sound and consistent with our advice. However, we reserve final comment until we have been able to fully review and formally comment upon this information.

Regarding concerns raised at Regulation 18 in relation to water quality and water resources, we welcome the revised delivery figure of 400 dwellings per annum, as this is more realistic when considered in the context of the environmental capacity of the area.

We anticipate that the revised Water Cycle Study will have addressed the majority of our queries raised in relation to the initial WCS, as Torbay Council has continued to work with us to progress the study towards completion. However, it is likely that we will still have concerns regarding:

The potential implications for water quality arising from this level of growth in the absence of a clear and committed programme for Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) capacity increases.
The lack of a defined route for offsetting new surface water connections to the network where such connections are essential.
The significant reliance on increased water efficiency measures and reduced water consumption assumptions in demonstrating acceptable water resource availability.
The lack of information regarding additional water resource infrastructure required to support growth in the area.

These matters may therefore continue to raise concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of the proposed level of growth unless supported by robust evidence and deliverable infrastructure solutions.

Support

Representation ID: 3384

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

We welcome the inclusion of this in line with our comments at reg 18

Support

Representation ID: 3385

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Welcome the changes and additions to wording in Policy HS and supporting text as per our Regulation 18 response.

Support

Representation ID: 3386

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

We support the incorporation of an additional bullet point setting out no net addition to the sewer, as requested in our Regulation 18 representation.

Support

Representation ID: 3387

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Increase in EVCP welcomed

Support

Representation ID: 3388

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Changes relating to phasing, the timely delivery of infrastructure, and the reference to site-specific requirements (including NBS) are welcomed, in line with our Regulation 18 comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 3389

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

We strongly welcomed this paragraph at Regulation 18, which highlighted that “Critical Drainage Areas, flooding, coastal change management and sewer capacity are increasingly important infrastructure issues in the Bay.” However, this wording has now been removed.

Support

Representation ID: 3390

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

We welcome the incorporation of our comments and the resulting changes to the wording, including the strengthening of the policy and supporting text in response to our earlier representations.

Support

Representation ID: 3391

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Overall, we support Policies ER1 to ER3 and the supporting explanatory text, including the incorporation of our suggested rewording and amendments from earlier representations.

Object

Representation ID: 3392

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Strong concerns re the statement that Paignton Town Centre is “sequentially preferable”