Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3393

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

'Point 2 risk to health' - Change to ‘risk to health and sensitive receptors’, as this may not always relate to human health and could also affect the environment.

Support

Representation ID: 3394

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Support the changes to this policy. It is now far clearer and more accurate and, overall, reflects our advice and comments made at Regulation 18.

Comment

Representation ID: 3395

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Add a bullet 4 - A bullet allowing coastal change development, such as coastal defence works or managed retreat, etc. We still advise against these provisions, as they could create issues in delivering something that the Council wishes to achieve where it would not be compliant with these policies.

Comment

Representation ID: 3396

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Suggest ULPAs and LGS gave a nod in the supporting text to the approval of their use to accommodate blue infrastructure, especially where it supports sustainable surface water drainage features. Still advise these, as they could create difficulties in achieving outcomes the Council wishes to deliver where those outcomes are not compliant with these policies.

Comment

Representation ID: 3397

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Would just reiterate with the TH policies that landscaping schemes and replacement/new trees should be climate resilient and should be designed not to require watering through the summer months. This is beneficial given the water resource issues facing the area, but also because any excess water would enter the combined system, adding to the water quality/CSO issues.

Comment

Representation ID: 3398

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Suggest hedgehog holes to boundaries as bullet ‘d’.

Please reconsider this inclusion, or at the least its inclusion in paragraph 9.81.

Comment

Representation ID: 3399

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Suggest ‘combined sewers’ instead of ‘shared’. The term ‘shared’ suggests ownership rather than a sewer system that carries both surface water and foul water.

Please also reconsider the wording and use ‘combined’ instead of ‘shared’, as we consider the current terminology to be confusing.

Support

Representation ID: 3400

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

We support the Regulation 19 Plan’s aim of delivering 400 homes per year rather than a higher quantum, as we consider the evidence suggests that even 400 homes per year will require the innovative solutions and sensitive development approach set out in the Plan to avoid exceeding environmental capacity. The available evidence indicates that growth above this level would cause unacceptable environmental harm and would be unsustainable.

Comment

Representation ID: 3401

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

We are not currently in a position to confirm our agreement with the proposed site allocations from a flood risk perspective, as the final SFRA has not yet been reviewed or agreed. Our position on individual allocations therefore remains subject to review of the completed SFRA and supporting site assessment evidence.

There are also a number of areas where greater clarity would be beneficial, either within the SFRA or the Local Plan, particularly where development or redevelopment is proposed within areas of recognised flood risk:

Safety and access requirements for site-specific FRAs
Provide clearer minimum requirements for demonstrating safe access and egress, including when refuge or stay-put arrangements may be acceptable. This should include the criteria for an acceptable refuge, appropriate design levels/freeboard, and when an emergency plan would be required. These requirements should be developed in discussion with the Emergency Planner and reflect NPPF F7.

Appropriate use and layout requirements
Provide clearer direction on where more vulnerable uses should or should not be located within areas of flood risk, including how site layout should respond to differences in flood depth, hazard and climate change risk. NPPF F7 now expressly requires the most vulnerable development within a site to be located in the area of lowest flood risk.

Requirements for higher-risk areas
Provide clearer direction on which development should be avoided or restricted in areas of greater flood risk.

Comment

Representation ID: 3402

Received: 23/09/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

We are not currently in a position to confirm our agreement with the proposed site allocations from a flood risk perspective, as the final SFRA has not yet been reviewed or agreed. Our position on individual allocations therefore remains subject to review of the completed SFRA and supporting site assessment evidence.

There are also a number of areas where greater clarity would be beneficial, either within the SFRA or the Local Plan, particularly where development or redevelopment is proposed within areas of recognised flood risk:

Safety and access requirements for site-specific FRAs
Provide clearer minimum requirements for demonstrating safe access and egress, including when refuge or stay-put arrangements may be acceptable. This should include the criteria for an acceptable refuge, appropriate design levels/freeboard, and when an emergency plan would be required. These requirements should be developed in discussion with the Emergency Planner and reflect NPPF F7.

Appropriate use and layout requirements
Provide clearer direction on where more vulnerable uses should or should not be located within areas of flood risk, including how site layout should respond to differences in flood depth, hazard and climate change risk. NPPF F7 now expressly requires the most vulnerable development within a site to be located in the area of lowest flood risk.

Requirements for higher-risk areas
Provide clearer direction on which development should be avoided or restricted in areas of greater flood risk.