Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 3474

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H11 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

87. There appears to be some confusion in the wording of the policy, between M4(2) and M4(3) standards. It is in fact M4(3)a which is the wheelchair adaptable housing standard and M4(3)b is for wheelchair accessible housing. There is therefore a need for the policy to be clear on this issue and also provide the distinction between M4(3)a and M(4)3b. The latter can only be sought on affordable housing where the Council has nominations and can be ten times more expensive than the former.

88. As we have said the viability of older person’s housing is different to other forms of housing, and HBF is very concerned that seeking to impose both a age and a local residency restriction would make such units both unviable and un-mortgageable.

Object

Representation ID: 3476

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Chapter 4 is considered to be unsound because the focus on employment is at the expense of considering sites for housing and as such the Plan is not positively prepared, not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

89. As we have said in response to Policy SS1 and elsewhere HBF believes more should be done to support housing delivery in Torbay. This includes additional housing allocations and a full assessment of the implications of the range of Local Plan policies on the deliverability and viability of development. This means proper consideration should have been given through the SA and SEA process, the allocations and the policies to the mix between employment and housing being proposed in the Plan.

90. Although HBF recognises the importance of employment space, policies requiring new employment land must be proportionate to need. The policy as it currently stands appears to be contrary to the clearly expresses the need for high quality, affordable housing. There is a real risk that the Plan’s strategy will mean it is not possible for the Plans to deliver its ambitions for affordable housing because it is also making such a big ask on employment provision. HBF note that not every site is appropriate for employment development, especially where there are topographical or potential access issues.

Object

Representation ID: 3478

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SCS is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

91. In order for the Plan to be justified and in compliance with national policy, it will be important for any s106 contributions to be assessed against the CIL tests at the time that a planning application is being determined. The policy wording throughout this chapter should be clearer that development can only be required to mitigate its own impact and cannot be required to address existing deficits or history underinvestment.

92. HBF would also draw attention to the High Court Decision on R (on the application of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust) versus Harborough District Council. This has drawn into question the legitimacy of asking for developer contributions for acute healthcare that is funded through general taxation.

Object

Representation ID: 3479

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy INS is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

93. In order for the Plan to be justified and in compliance with national policy, it will be important for any s106 contributions to be assessed against the CIL tests at the time that a planning application is being determined. The policy wording throughout this chapter should be clearer that development can only be required to mitigate its own impact and cannot be required to address existing deficits or history underinvestment.

Object

Representation ID: 3480

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy IN2 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

96. The Local Plan policy requirement for residential digital connectivity has bene superseded by Building Regulations and so no policy on this is needed in the Plan. This shows the danger of including local policies on matters that are addressed at a national level, including through other regulatory regimes.

97. The whole plan viability assessment should have covered the whole Torbay Plan area, but HBF also note that large areas of Torbay suffer significant deprivation, and this is reflected in property values. As such this will also affect viability. There are also notoriously difficult geological conditions in the Bay which result in greatly increased abnormal build costs means that development viability is already difficult. Any additional contributions are likely to undermine the likelihood of housing delivery at all. The SA process and the whole plan viability assessment therefore need to robustly test the implications of this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 3481

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy CERS is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

98. HBF notes the significant viability challenges facing development that result from seemingly ever increasing cost burdens and policy requirements. As such HBF does not support Council seeking to introduce policies that require higher that Building Regulations requirements in relation to water consumption, carbon and energy. We believe these issues, including water efficiency, should be matter addressed through Building Regulations.

99. Building Regulations already requires all new dwellings to achieve a mandatory level of water efficiency of 125 litres per day per person, which is a higher standard than that achieved by much of the existing housing stock. This mandatory standard already represents an effective demand management measure, and many development achieve above this. There is an optional water standard of 110 litres per person per day which HBF have seen Councils seek to apply with clear evidence in water stressed areas. However, there is no need or justification for setting a Local Plan standard for Torbay of 100 litres per person per day, especially as this matter is already being revisited nationally.

Object

Representation ID: 3482

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy CER1 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

100. Although HBF recognises the role that developers can play in helping to mitigate and address climate change and increase energy efficiency we would caution against policies that seek to go further and faster than national legislation and policy changes. This would lead to the creation of a patchwork of differing local policies which could inadvertently undermine the delivery of the wider environmental objectives the Council is seeking and create unnecessary delays to much needed new housing.

101. HBF does not consider that the Council setting its own standards is the appropriate. We are concerned about Councils adding to the complexity of policy, regulations and standards that housebuilders are already expected to comply with. The key to success is standardisation and avoidance of individual Councils specifying their own policy approach, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers. The impact of these cumulative local requirements along with others Section 106 asks may have considerable viability implication and may lead to the non-delivery homes. Any variations from national standards must be fully considered and tested within the Viability Assessment, and this has not occured.

102. HBF do not support Local Plan policies on matters that are already addressed by Building Regulations and other regulatory regimes. A plethora of local standards can actually undermine the objectives the Council is seeking to achieve, for example by seeking to introduce uncertainty and variability to the timetable for the introduction of the national Future Homes Standard, which has bene set nationally.

Object

Representation ID: 3483

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy CER2 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

103. HBF do not support Councils seeking to introduce policies that require higher that Building Regulations requirements in relation to water consumption, carbon and energy. See response to policy CERS and CER1 for more detailed explanation. In any event, HBF believe applying this policy to all sites over 10 homes as major development is disproportionate. A different approach to small and medium sized sites should be developed instead.

Object

Representation ID: 3484

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy ER4: Sustainable Drainage Systems and Water Sensitive Urban Design

HBF is concerned that the impact of this policy will make other parts of the plan ineffective.

104. HBF are aware of the challenges that delivery of the new SUDs guidance is having on the deliverability of sites, include achievable densities, with knock on impacts for viability. Where viability is already challenges these issue exacerbate the problem.

Object

Representation ID: 3485

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy L1 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy.

105. As HBF have said elsewhere in our representations, we do not believe the Plan is doing enough to allocate land for housing in Torbay. As such further allocations in the countryside are needed, and this will have consequential implications for the definition of countryside within the Plan.