Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 3252

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Belstone Fox Ltd

Agent: Collier Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representations on behalf of Baker Estates Ltd and Belstone Fox Ltd

We write on behalf of Baker Estates Ltd and Belstone Fox Ltd to make representations on the Regulation 19 consultation on the Draft Torbay Local Plan 2025-2045.

Executive Summary

While we would absolutely agree that the plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system and that the benefits of an up-to-date local plan are usually significant, it is clearly not the case that any local plan is better than none at all. It is our firm view that the Regulation 19 Draft Torbay Local Plan 2025-2045 is merely a plan for stagnation and failure and so should be ripped up and started again. It is so inadequate that it would be better to have no plan at all than this local plan.

The December 2024 NPPF, with which this local plan should be consistent, requires local plans to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, aim to meet the area’s identified housing need, and positively and proactively encourage sustainable economic growth, building on an area’s strengths, countering any weaknesses and addressing the challenges of the future. This local plan has been prepared to fail to achieve any of these core objectives.

The Minister of State for Housing and Planning’s call for no stone to be left unturned in identifying suitable sites for development in order to address the Regulation 18 draft plan’s proposal to deliver less than half, only 42%, of the housing need figure identified by the new standard method has patently not been followed. Instead, the inadequacies of the spatial strategy and proposed housing requirement of the Regulation 18 draft plan have, incredibly, been exacerbated still further within the Regulation 19 draft, which now even proposes to omit one of the very limited number of originally identified greenfield site allocations, being that at Monksbridge, Brixham, which is being promoted by our clients.

The Council’s decision to do so at the very first whiff of controversy, and without making any effort to try to explore how the site can be developed in a manner which responds positively to new issues that have come to light, as my clients have already done, demonstrates a complete lack of will to try to meet the development needs of the area. This suggests that there may also be countless other sites which could be made suitable for development if the Council wanted them to be, were prepared to explore them further, and make difficult decisions.

Quite simply, the Council has done the opposite of leaving no stone unturned. It has really not tried very hard at all.

The letter of the Minister of State for Housing and Planning to the Planning Inspectorate of 15 July 2026 calls for pragmatism when assessing local plans. This is in the context of local plans needing “to provide the certainty and confidence required to bring development forward across the country”. This local plan will do the opposite. Instead, it will provide a means for the Council to block the development that is needed to meet the local needs of the area. In these circumstances, no plan would be better than this local plan in terms of helping to bring forward delivery of much-needed housing and economic development.

A local plan inspector can have no confidence that this plan has been positively prepared, using our clients’ site as a prime example. We can set this out in much more detail at the examination, if the plan gets that far.

However, for the reasons set out in this letter, it is our firm view that this local plan should be withdrawn or found unsound, and the consequences of this for delivering sustainable development will, incredibly, be more positive than negative. The Council should start again and produce a positively prepared local plan, as required by national policy, which meets the needs of the Torbay area.

This letter is being copied to the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, who we would urge to intervene once again in this local plan.

Object

Representation ID: 3253

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Belstone Fox Ltd

Agent: Collier Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Proposed Omission of the Regulation 18 Draft Allocation H3BCGC.3 at Monksbridge, Brixham from Draft Strategic Policy H3

Baker Estates Ltd and Belstone Fox Ltd jointly own the site that was identified as draft mixed-use allocation H3BCGC.3 at Monksbridge, Brixham in the Regulation 18 Draft Plan. We made representations on their behalf in response to the Regulation 18 consultation (our letter dated 18 January 2026 refers), supporting the draft mixed-use allocation and providing the Council with evidence that the site is suitable and available for development.

Since then, this has been further demonstrated by the submission of an outline planning application (LPA Ref: P/2026/0148) proposing mixed-use development of the site in line with the Regulation 18 draft allocation. The application was validated by the Council on 29 April 2026.

It is therefore hugely disappointing that the draft mixed-use allocation of the site has been omitted from the Regulation 19 consultation draft.

Page 13 of the Council’s Housing Growth Topic Paper (August 2026) states:

“Land at Monksbridge, Brixham. This site was included in the Reg 18 Draft (H3 BCG1: for 130 dwellings as part of a mixed-use development). The Working Party recommend removing this site from the Regulation 19 Plan due to impact upon the National Landscape, and ecological impact, particularly Greater Horseshoe Bats. The land continues to be promoted and there is a live planning application (P/2025/0148 for 175 dwellings and 0.6ha commercial land).”

There is no justification for this decision.

The outline planning application is supported by a comprehensive package of technical reports and an Environmental Statement reporting on the Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken in respect of the proposals.

Representations submitted on the outline planning application by Devon County Council (on behalf of Torbay Council Ecology), dated 5 June 2026, assert that the indicative masterplan accompanying the application appears to show a net loss of foraging habitat for Greater Horseshoe Bats within a sustenance zone. The representations conclude that further compensation for the loss of foraging habitat within the sustenance zone is required before a conclusion of No Likely Significant Effect can be reached in respect of the South Hams Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

The representations further state that this conclusion is consistent with the findings of the emerging Torbay Local Plan South Hams SAC Greater Horseshoe Bat Evidence Study Report, prepared by Burton Reid Associates and published in May 2026, following submission of the outline planning application.

Consequently, a revised indicative masterplan has been formulated (attached as Appendix 1) showing approximately 3.8 hectares (9.39 acres) of land set aside as a dedicated Greater Horseshoe Bat mitigation area. This expands habitat provision within the northern and western parts of the site, increasing foraging opportunities along known commuting routes and providing enhanced habitat that would represent a significant improvement over the existing grassland for Greater Horseshoe Bats.

In addition, there is further land within the applicants’ ownership comprising woodland and watercourse corridors amounting to approximately 2.5 acres, where additional ecological enhancements can be delivered and secured through a Section 106 Agreement.

This approach has been discussed with Devon County Council’s ecologist, who has indicated that it would most likely provide a framework capable of supporting a positive conclusion, subject to the completion of the necessary technical work, which is currently being undertaken.

There is therefore no justification for removing the site as a draft allocation.

It can now be demonstrated that the site can be developed for up to approximately 160 homes and a small area of commercial uses in a manner that enhances its value for bat foraging within the Core Sustenance Zone identified in the Burton Reid report. Consequently, the recommendation of that report to delete the previously proposed allocation is not necessary.

We therefore strongly object to the unjustified omission of the Regulation 18 draft allocation H3BCGC.3 at Monksbridge, Brixham on the grounds that it results in the Plan not being:

- Positively prepared;
- Justified;
- Effective; or
- Consistent with national policy.

Accordingly, the proposed omission of the allocation renders the Plan unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 3254

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Belstone Fox Ltd

Agent: Collier Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Draft Strategic Policy SS1: Spatial Strategy

In our letter of 18 January 2026 in response to the Regulation 18 consultation, we expressed strong concerns regarding the housing strategy of the Plan, both in terms of the scale of housing it seeks to provide and the means by which it proposes to deliver that limited level of housing.

Just a few days later, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning expressed similar concerns. In his letter of 22 January 2026, he advised the Council to ensure that it had:

“left no stone unturned in its efforts to identify land that is suitable for development”.

In his subsequent letter of 11 June 2026, the Minister stated:

“In November, the Council published a draft local plan for Regulation 18 consultation with a housing requirement that met just 42% of the area’s Local Housing Need (LHN), leaving a shortfall of 10,980 homes over the plan period. There appears to be limited up-to-date evidence available to justify the Council’s approach.

I am particularly concerned that, despite recent work to re-align your emerging plan with the 2024 version of the National Planning Policy Framework, an up-to-date Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) has not yet been published.”

Within that letter, the Minister directed the Council to submit all available evidence base documents that informed its conclusion that only 42% of local housing need could be met through the emerging Plan. This was to include:

-An updated Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA);
-Any relevant constraints studies;
-Residential density assessments;
-National Landscape and wider landscape impact studies; and
-Any housing-related topic papers prepared by the Council.

The Leader of the Council subsequently responded on 2 July 2026, stating:

“Potential options and sites to boost growth have been assessed on a cross-party basis by the Local Plan Working Party. The Council’s view is that 8,000 dwellings is the maximum level of development that could be achieved within Torbay’s physical, environmental and infrastructure capacity within the plan period. Torbay is a heavily constrained coastal urban authority, and there are strong legal and planning reasons why the LHN figure cannot be met.

We understand that this position will need to be robustly justified at Examination. The currently available evidence has been provided to your team electronically and will be published on our website for the Regulation 19 consultation. This includes an update to the 2021 HELAA.”

However, the update to the 2021 HELAA has not been published on the Council’s website as part of the Regulation 19 consultation. Under the “Evidence Base” section of the consultation webpage, it currently states:

“There are no documents here right now”.

Furthermore, an email request made to the policy team regarding this matter has not received a response.

The only supporting evidence currently available to justify the proposed strategy and demonstrate compliance with the tests of soundness is the Spatial Strategy and Justification for Proposed Growth Level Topic Paper dated August 2026. In no way does this document demonstrate that a more detailed and open-minded assessment of development options has been undertaken when compared with previous stages of plan preparation.

The decision, attributed in the Housing Growth Topic Paper to the Council’s Working Party, to omit the Regulation 18 draft mixed-use allocation H3BCGC.3 at Monksbridge, Brixham from the Regulation 19 draft further undermines the Council’s position and demonstrates that it has not, in fact, left no stone unturned in its efforts to identify land suitable for development.

The Council originally assessed the site as one of a very limited number of greenfield locations considered suitable for development. This is the clear conclusion to be drawn from its decision to include the site as a draft allocation within the Regulation 18 Draft Plan.

However, following publication of the Torbay Local Plan South Hams SAC Greater Horseshoe Bat Evidence Study Report, prepared by Burton Reid Associates in May 2026, which identified additional ecological considerations, the Working Party appears to have simply decided to remove the proposed allocation. Rather than exploring how development could be delivered in a way that addressed those issues, the allocation was deleted.

For the reasons already set out in this representation, that approach is unnecessary. The site can be developed whilst setting aside and expanding habitat within the northern and western parts of the site as a dedicated Greater Horseshoe Bat mitigation area. This would increase foraging opportunities along known commuting routes and deliver enhanced habitat that would represent a significant improvement over the existing grassland currently available to Greater Horseshoe Bats.

The Council’s approach indicates that it is not seriously seeking to identify as much suitable land as possible in order to move closer to meeting the evidenced housing and wider development needs of the area. It also raises a wider question: if the suitability of sites can be dismissed as readily as has occurred in relation to land at Monksbridge, Brixham, without first seeking solutions to the issues identified, then how many other potential development opportunities may also have been discounted prematurely?

Accordingly, we object to Draft Strategic Policy SS1: Spatial Strategy on the grounds that it results in the Plan not being, positively prepared; justified; effective; or consistent with national policy.

For these reasons, the policy fails the tests of soundness and should be amended accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 3255

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Belstone Fox Ltd

Agent: Collier Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Draft Strategic Policy HS: Overall Housing Strategy and Presumption in Favour of Urban Regeneration

We have explained in our previous representations the reasons for our concerns that the draft Local Plan seeks to continue a failed strategy. As the Regulation 19 Draft Plan does not alter that strategy, we remain very concerned about the implications this has for the soundness of the Plan.

We note that publication of the Council’s last two Housing Delivery Test measurements, 44% for 2024 and 40% for 2025, both published in August this year, show a further significant decline from the 66% recorded for 2023, published in December 2024. This represents a continuing downward trend in housing delivery.

We fail to see how continuation of the same strategy can reasonably be expected to reverse this trend, and the Council has provided no compelling evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

The strategy pursued through previous plans, which the Council is now seeking to continue, has inevitably had serious consequences for the delivery of affordable housing across the area and has contributed to an ever-increasing level of affordable housing need.

We have previously highlighted comments made by the Inspector in the 2025 appeal decision relating to land at Copythorne Road, Brixham (PINS Ref: APP/X1165/W/24/3354507), which stated:

“83. The Council does not dispute that it has consistently failed to demonstrate a minimum five year supply of housing since 2016, despite the policies of the development plan that promote reviews and proactivity in the quest to ensure that such can be consistently demonstrated. This, coupled with the past record of recent under performance against the Housing Delivery Targets, suggests that Torbay is an area that, despite the Council’s efforts, has not granted enough permissions or facilitated the building of houses to meet needs.

There is also an agreement that there is an ongoing and acute need for affordable housing across Torbay, generally reflective of the national situation.

84. The new standard method housing target represents a step change in the number of houses the Council is being asked to plan for. For a third time, the Council is now preparing for a Regulation 18 Plan which seeks to accommodate a number of houses far higher than previous attempts and the engagement of the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities is yet to prove that any shortfall can be met elsewhere.”*

Continuing, as the draft Plan appears to propose, with the same strategy that has failed to deliver sufficient housing to meet Torbay’s needs and has exacerbated housing affordability problems, cannot reasonably be regarded as a strategy that is:

Positively prepared;
Justified;
Effective; or
Consistent with national policy.

Even to meet the very low housing requirement proposed by the draft Plan, when compared with identified housing need, approximately 1,000 homes are expected to arise from the Council’s “Hotels to Homes” initiative and a further 2,400 homes from windfall development.

Aside from the fact that hotel-to-residential conversions would ordinarily be regarded as windfall development, the combined total equates to nearly half of the Plan’s proposed housing requirement being reliant upon development opportunities that have not yet been specifically identified.

The Inspector in the above-mentioned appeal decision commented on this issue as follows:

“89. At the hearing, the Council raised its ambition to implement a ‘Hotels to Homes’ initiative which will see much of the older hotel stock within the district turned into homes. Despite not having the detail as to the yield, distribution and timeframe for delivery of such, this is a supportable initiative. However, the regeneration of existing brownfield sites alone is unlikely to deliver the quantum of houses or range of house types necessary to meet the area’s housing needs.”*

There is also the wider issue that the loss of substantial numbers of hotels threatens Torbay’s tourism function, which remains fundamental to the local economy. The conversion of a significant proportion of hotel stock to permanent residential accommodation would risk undermining the tourism sector and, in turn, the overall soundness of the Plan’s strategy.

The consequences of poor housing delivery are also causing wider economic harm. Examples include:

Declining enrolment levels in local primary and secondary schools;
Increased pressure on support and care services resulting from an ageing population;
A high proportion of working-age residents undertaking unpaid caring responsibilities (with approximately 13% acting as full-time voluntary carers);
The need for many key workers, particularly in retail, care and hospitality sectors, to commute into Brixham;
The important economic relationship between tourism and Brixham’s fishing industry; and
The inability of the existing population to provide the critical mass required to support the town centre, with approximately 45% of retail expenditure leaking to Paignton and destinations further afield.

The implications for the tourism and hospitality sector are particularly significant.

Tourism is not merely an important contributor to local Gross Domestic Product. It is widely recognised as a critical driver of the local economy. Across Torbay, the sector generates approximately £500 million per annum and supports around 25,000 direct full-year-equivalent jobs. In addition, numerous indirect jobs and small and medium-sized businesses depend upon a successful tourism economy.

Hotel and guesthouse occupancy rates typically average around 83% per annum, while Brixham alone currently has approximately 460 active Airbnb listings, each generating an average annual income of around £30,500.

The vulnerability of the tourism sector was demonstrated during the recent Cryptosporidium incident, which had a severe impact on visitor numbers and tourism spending. Against that backdrop, a policy which actively encourages the loss of hotel accommodation runs directly contrary to several adopted growth and economic development strategies, including the Torbay Growth Plan.

Indeed, the draft Local Plan strategy appears to be inconsistent with a range of wider economic and growth strategies, including:

Devon and Torbay Local Growth Plan 2025-2035;
Devon & Torbay Combined County Authority Working Plan 2025-2027;
Torbay Council Economic Growth Strategy; and
Torbay Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2025/26.

We object to Draft Strategic Policy HS, which states that major greenfield development on unallocated sites outside settlement boundaries or Future Growth Areas will be resisted unless:

Brought forward through a Neighbourhood Plan or Supplementary Plan; or
It meets the requirements of Affordable Housing Exceptions Site Policy H8.



Objection

We therefore object to Draft Strategic Policy HS: Overall Housing Strategy and Presumption in Favour of Urban Regeneration on the grounds that it results in the Plan not being:

Positively prepared;
Justified;
Effective; or
Consistent with national policy.

Accordingly, the policy fails the tests of soundness and should be reconsidered through a more robust, evidence-led approach that seeks to identify sufficient land to meet Torbay’s housing and economic development needs.

Object

Representation ID: 3256

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Belstone Fox Ltd

Agent: Collier Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We also object to Draft Strategic Policy SDB1: Brixham, which proposes an unjustified and limited level of growth at Brixham and states that major development will not be permitted within the South Devon National Landscape, unless brought forward through a neighbourhood plan and demonstrated to be in the public interest.

This is despite there being at least one site, Monksbridge, Brixham, which the Council has previously identified as suitable for development but has now deleted from the Plan without justification.

Our previous representations, together with the current outline planning application (LPA Ref: P/2026/0148), have demonstrated that:

The site is located in a highly sustainable location, close to a wide range of services and facilities that are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.

Development of the site can be accommodated in a manner that responds sensitively to the setting and special qualities of the South Devon National Landscape, together with its wider landscape and visual context.

The site occupies a logical location for development, being influenced by the existing settlement edge and physically separated from the wider undeveloped areas of the National Landscape.

Development provides an opportunity to create a genuinely landscape-led scheme, incorporating and enhancing existing characteristic landscape features. It would also deliver biodiversity benefits and increase opportunities for recreation, health and wellbeing.

Where land is suitable for development and lies on the edge of the National Landscape, the designation should not act as an absolute constraint on the supply of development land where development would not undermine the role, function or special qualities of the wider National Landscape.

This was the conclusion reached by the Inspector in the appeal relating to land at Copythorne Road, Brixham (PINS Ref: APP/X1165/W/24/3354507), where planning permission was granted on the basis that the adverse impacts of development within the National Landscape that surrounds Brixham would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of delivering housing to address the substantial housing need generated by the revised standard method.

In light of the omission of Regulation 18 Draft Allocation H3BCGC.3 at Monksbridge, Brixham, we object to Draft Strategic Policy SDB1: Brixham on the grounds that it results in the Plan not being:

Positively prepared;
Justified;
Effective; or
Consistent with national policy.

Accordingly, the policy fails the tests of soundness and should be reviewed to ensure that suitable and sustainable development opportunities at Brixham are properly considered and assessed.

Object

Representation ID: 3257

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Belstone Fox Ltd

Agent: Collier Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We object to Draft Strategic Policy H7.

No evidence has been published to justify the proposed affordable housing targets, and they have the potential to further discourage housing delivery given the current volatility in economic conditions, as identified in the Minister of State for Housing and Planning’s letter of 15 July 2026 to the Planning Inspectorate. In that letter, the Minister emphasised the importance of taking an appropriately pragmatic and proportionate approach to issues of deliverability and viability.

The National Planning Policy Framework requirement for development viability to be addressed at the plan-making stage means that it is vital for the Council’s evidence base to be comprehensive and robust. There needs to be clear evidence that the Council has considered and assessed:

A comprehensive range of development types;
Different site sizes;
Different development locations; and
The varying viability implications associated with these factors.

At present, it remains unclear what evidence, assessments or viability work has informed the draft policy.

It is also important that an appropriate balance is struck between:

Delivering affordable housing;
Meeting infrastructure requirements; and
Achieving sustainability and design objectives.

Development must remain deliverable in practice, and policy requirements therefore need to be realistic in terms of what can reasonably be achieved.

The cumulative impact of:

The Future Homes Standard;
The Building Safety Levy;
Biodiversity Net Gain requirements;
General and sustained construction cost inflation;
Stagnant or falling house prices; and
Ongoing challenges faced by Registered Providers,

creates a challenging environment for development viability. As drafted, the policy risks making an already poor housing delivery record even worse.

In addition, there does not appear to be any valid justification for applying a higher affordable housing requirement within the National Landscape, and such an approach is not consistent with national policy.

The viability of delivering housing within the National Landscape will, self-evidently, be no different from delivering housing outside it. Indeed, in circumstances where both Housing Delivery Test performance and five-year housing land supply projections demonstrate significant under-delivery, requiring any site within the National Landscape to be brought forward solely as an Exceptions Site is inappropriate.

Where suitable and deliverable sites exist, they should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

Accordingly, we object to Draft Strategic Policy H7: Affordable Housing on the grounds that it results in the Plan not being:

Positively prepared;
Justified;
Effective; or
Consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 3258

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Belstone Fox Ltd

Agent: Collier Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We also object to draft Strategic Policy NCS2 which states that within the Core Sustenance Zone, avoidance of impacts to Greater Horseshoe Bat habitat and connectivity will be prioritised over mitigation, compensation or enhancement measures.

Within the context of the need to identify land to meet the development needs of the area, such an approach will contribute to the plan as a whole failing the tests of soundness when there is clear evidence, as referred to above, that suitable development sites are being dismissed even when they can be developed in a manner that can actually enhance habitat for Greater Horseshoe Bats.

In light of the omission of the Regulation 18 draft allocation H3BCGC.3 at Monksbridge, Brixham, we object to draft Policy NCS2 on the grounds that it results in the plan not being positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.