Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 3313

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation to the Regulation 19 Publication Version of the Draft Torbay Local Plan 2025-45

This Representation is made in response to the Regulation 19 Publication Version of the Draft Torbay Local Plan 2025–45: ‘A Landscape to Thrive’ (August 2026) (hereafter referred to as ‘the draft Local Plan’).

The representation is submitted by Savills on behalf of Vistry Homes Ltd (‘Vistry’), which has an interest in Land north of Long Road, Yalberton, Paignton (‘the Site’). A copy of the Site Location Plan is provided at Appendix 1.

The site falls within the ‘Long Road, Yalberton Future Growth Area’ under draft Policy SDP5, which is allocated for a mix of new homes and employment land. Vistry continues to promote the site for a residential-led development of circa 320 dwellings, including a policy compliant level of affordable housing, together with associated open space, green and blue infrastructure, and sustainable transport connections.

These representations are supported by an Indicative Masterplan and Vision Document setting out the preliminary proposals for the site.

We previously submitted written representations on behalf of Vistry to the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan in February 2026. Where the Regulation 19 plan carries forward the same or similar policy wording, and our position is unchanged, we have expressly cross-referred our earlier representations. This is intended to assist the Council and the appointed Inspector by highlighting where previously raised concerns have or have not been addressed.

We note that, as confirmed in Paragraph 1.8 of the Draft Local Plan, the scope of the Regulation 19 Consultation is more narrowly defined than at previous stages and is focused on the soundness of the plan and its conformity with the legal tests.

Accordingly, these representations are framed by reference to the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (NPPF), namely whether the plan is:

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

These representations also address the relevant legal and procedural requirements.

As raised at Regulation 18 stage, we continue to consider that there is a degree of overlap and duplication between
the site allocations, the Strategic Development (SD) policies and the ‘Future Growth Area’ policies (in particular
between draft Policies SDP5, H2 and E1). This creates ambiguity in relation to the quantum of development being
planned for at Long Road, Yalberton, and should be resolved to ensure the plan is clear, effective and
unambiguous, as required by paragraph 16(d) of the NPPF (2024).

Object

Representation ID: 3314

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Housing Requirement

We continue to have significant concerns regarding draft Policy SS1, predominantly in relation to the proposed housing requirement and the lack of justification for a requirement that is substantially below the Government’s standard method figure.

Our fundamental concerns raised at Regulation 18 has not been addressed through any changes as part of the Regulation 19 plan.

The Local Plan continues to propose only 8,000 new homes over the 20-year plan period 2025–45, equating to 400 dwellings per annum.

The draft Local Plan (paragraph 2.2 and the explanation to Policy HS) states that the Local Housing Need (LHN) for Torbay, as calculated by the December 2024 standard method, is now 972 dwellings per annum.

The proposed requirement therefore represents only around 41% of LHN – an even lower proportion than the 42% we raised concerns over at Regulation 18 stage.

The plan seeks to justify this substantial shortfall by reference to Torbay’s environmental, infrastructure and market capacity constraints, and states that the shortfall against LHN “requires robust justification, which is set out in the supporting Topic Paper”.

As at Regulation 18, we do not consider that vague references to constraints provide sufficient justification for planning to meet less than half of the district’s objectively assessed need.

The onus is on the Council to demonstrate, through robust and up-to-date evidence, that the shortfall cannot be met within Torbay or, where it cannot, that all reasonable steps have been taken to meet unmet need through effective cooperation with neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Cooperate.

The plan is currently inconsistent with national policy, which requires local plans to meet objectively assessed needs as a minimum unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The Council should be planning to meet the standard method figure as a minimum, and should undertake further work to identify a wider range of deliverable and developable sites to provide choice and competition in the market.

The Land north of Long Road, Yalberton is a suitable, available and deliverable site that can contribute positively to meeting that need, and so should remain within the plan as a proposed allocation.

In the absence of any supporting evidence to justify otherwise, the housing requirement should be increased to meet Torbay’s LHN in full, or the Council should robustly evidence the maximum capacity of the district and clearly quantify any residual unmet need to be addressed through the emerging Devon Spatial Development Strategy and the Duty to Cooperate.

Employment Requirement within Future Growth Areas

As we previously stated in our Regulation 18 representations, we object to the blanket requirement in Policy SS1 for a minimum of 25% of Future Growth Areas (FGAs) to be delivered as employment use.

We acknowledge the need to allocate land to meet identified employment needs; however, applying a fixed percentage target across all FGAs, without site-specific evidence of demand, is not justified and risks delivering the wrong type of employment floorspace in the wrong locations.

The delivery of new employment floorspace should be demand-led and directed to sites that can demonstrably accommodate it and where there is an evidenced need.

We encourage the Council to reword this element of Policy SS1 so that mixed-use development, including a mix of residential and employment uses, is encouraged and supported within FGAs where appropriate, rather than imposing a rigid minimum percentage.

This is addressed further in our responses to Policies SDP5 and E1.

Object

Representation ID: 3315

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Our position on draft Policy HS is consistent with our comments on draft Policy SS1 in relation to the proposed
housing requirement and the absence of adequate supporting evidence.

In line with our Regulation 18 representations, our concerns over the overall scale of housing provision applies equally to draft Policy HS, which sets the 8,000-dwelling requirement and the stepped trajectory. We support the principle of a 20-year plan period but have concerns over the housing requirement itself for the reasons set out under Policy SS1.

We also note that the proposed stepped trajectory is heavily back-loaded, with delivery not reaching 400 dwellings per annum until 2035 and the majority of delivery concentrated in the latter half of the plan period.

This raises significant questions over the effectiveness of the trajectory and the deliverability of a five-year housing land supply in the early years of the plan, and reinforces the need to bring forward deliverable sites such as Land north of Long Road, Yalberton at the earliest opportunity.

Planning Practice Guidance addresses directly the question of when a stepped housing requirement is appropriate for plan-making. It confirms that a stepped requirement may be appropriate only where there is to be a significant change in the level of housing requirement between emerging and previous policies, and/or where strategic sites will have a phased delivery or are likely to be delivered later in the plan period. The PPG also confirms that strategic policy-makers in these circumstances should “not seek to unnecessarily delay meeting identified development needs”.

For these reasons, we consider a stepped trajectory would not be a sound approach, and would be contrary to
paragraph 36 of the Framework (2024) on the basis the plan is not positively prepared, and does not seek to meet
objectively assessed needs at the earliest practicable point.

Instead, we consider the draft Local Plan should be
amended to remove the proposed stepped trajectory and replace with a flat annualised housing requirement across
the plan period, supported by the allocation of additional deliverable sites capable of delivering in years 1–5 to ensure a five-year housing land supply can be demonstrated at adoption and maintained thereafter.

Object

Representation ID: 3316

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As we previously stated in our Regulation 18 representations, we strongly support the proposal under draft Policy SDP1 to direct growth towards Paignton, and in particular the continued delivery of the Future Growth Area to the west of Paignton, which will be key to enabling the Council to meet its housing requirement over the plan period.

However, as per our previous comments, whilst we support the principle of a master planning exercise to guide development in the FGA, in practice much of the wider growth area has already been developed or is under
construction. These developments have come forward independently and are not necessarily future-proofed to
enable a meaningful, comprehensive master planning exercise across the whole area. Therefore, whilst the principle of a masterplanning exercise is supported, individual sites, such as the Land north of Long Road, Yalberton, should not be held up by the preparation of an FGA-wide masterplan, and there should be flexibility to ensure site-specific proposals are able to proceed in parallel.

Object

Representation ID: 3317

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In line with our comments related to draft Policy SDP1, we strongly support the allocation of the Long Road, Yalberton Future Growth Area, the development of which will be vital to enabling the Council to meet its housing requirement over the plan period.

As demonstrated within the Sustainability Appraisal which underpins the Regulation 19 plan, the proposed allocation has a positive effect when assessed against the 13 sustainability objectives.

The Land north of Long Road, Yalberton forms a key component of this allocation, and we fully support its continued inclusion in the plan.

Scale of Development

Notwithstanding our in-principle support, we continue to have questions over the clarity around the proposed scale of development for the FGA and site itself, and the way in which this is expressed in the draft Local Plan.

For example, Criterion (i) of Policy SDP5 refers to ‘an additional 650 dwellings’, whilst the explanatory text (paragraph 2.35) indicates that at least 200 additional dwellings are expected beyond those already allocated/committed at Berry Acres, Devonshire Park and Inglewood.

As we previously stated, the policy should make explicitly clear the total number of new (unbuilt) dwellings being allocated, together with a breakdown of the existing commitments and previously identified sites that make up the remainder.

This is necessary for the draft policy to be effective and unambiguous.

As demonstrated in these representations, the Land north of Long Road, Yalberton is available and capable of delivering approximately 320 dwellings.

If, as the explanatory text suggests, at least 200 previously unallocated dwellings need to be identified within the FGA, the site is capable of accommodating that figure in full and more, making it a crucial element of the allocation.

Employment Provision

Furthermore, we continue to have concerns regarding the requirement for 25% of the area to come forward as Class E(g), B2 or B8 employment, delivering at least 20,000 sq m of industrial development, and the safeguarding of that land for such purposes.

As we previously stated in our Regulation 18 representations, employment uses should be directed to sites that can demonstrably accommodate them and where there is an evidenced need; the blanket approach is not justified.

Specifically, the southern part of the site at Long Road, Yalberton, which will be required to deliver drainage attenuation and the main site access, should not be safeguarded for employment as it is shown in the consultation document.

This is addressed further under draft Policy E1.

Landscape and Heritage Considerations

In terms of Criteria (viii) and (ix) of Policy SDP5, and paragraph 2.36 of the supporting text, this refers to a strategic landscape buffer and to the potential future designation of the Yalberton Valley as a Conservation Area.

Whilst the reference to a potential Conservation Area is a new element compared with the Regulation 18 draft, our position on landscape matters is broadly the same as previously expressed.

We do not object in principle to appropriate strategic landscaping to protect the character and setting of Higher and Lower Yalberton; however, any such buffer, and any future Conservation Area designation, must be justified by robust evidence and defined with sufficient precision so as not to unduly constrain or delay the delivery of the proposed allocated development.

A landscape-led scheme, of the type being progressed for the Land north of Long Road, can conserve and enhance the relevant landscape and heritage assets while delivering much-needed housing.

Minor Drafting Matter

As a minor point, it is also noted that the supporting text in paragraph 2.36 has a repeated first sentence, which should be amended.

Object

Representation ID: 3318

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We continue to strongly support the identification of the west of Paignton FGA and the inclusion of the Land north of Long Road, Yalberton within it. However, we continue to consider that further clarification is required to align Policy
H2 with Policy SDP5.

There remains a discrepancy between the indicative dwelling figures. The Policy H2 table (and Table 6) identifies 700 dwellings for ‘Long Road, White Rock and Inglewood, Paignton (and BCG Villages)’ (reference H2P.2), whilst Policy SDP5 refers to an additional 650 dwellings. The identification of an FGA in Policy SDP5 and the separate identification of component sites through Policy H2 is not objectionable in itself, but the way in which the figures are presented remains ambiguous and internally contradictory. The two policies should be carefully reviewed and reworded so that it is explicitly clear how many dwellings are being allocated, how many are existing/committed as opposed to new, and which HELAA sites are included. This is necessary for the plan to be effective and internally consistent.

Also, we reiterate our concern previously raised at Regulation 18 stage regarding the requirement for a
comprehensive FGA-wide masterplan. Given that much of the wider FGA has already been developed or committed,
the value of a retrospective FGA-wide masterplan is limited, and proposals for the Land north of Long Road should not be delayed pending its preparation.

Object

Representation ID: 3319

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We continue to be broadly supportive in principle of the proposed 30% affordable housing requirement for sites of 20 or more dwellings outside the South Devon National Landscape.

Vistry’s proposals for the Land north of Long Road would deliver 30% affordable housing (approximately 96 units), consistent with the policy requirement.

As we previously stated, however, the affordable tenure mix should be based primarily on up-to-date local evidence of need for the specific site area.

Policy H7 seeks a mix of 70% Social Rent and 30% Intermediate housing; the policy should be worded to make clear that this generic mix will be sought where supported by up-to-date local evidence, or in the absence of such evidence, and that it will be applied flexibly having regard to viability.

We also reiterate that, whilst the principle of integrating affordable housing is supported, the policy language on design and integration should be careful not to be so prescriptive as to conflict with the clustering and management requirements of registered providers, which could otherwise make the overall requirement harder to deliver.

Object

Representation ID: 3320

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst we continue to support the Council’s aspiration to deliver a diversified range of housing, we encourage the
Council to ensure that the self-build requirement within FGAs is soundly based on clear, up-to-date evidence of local need.

We note that the Regulation 19 plan now requires a minimum of 1% of dwellings within FGAs to be provided
as serviced self-build plots, a reduction from the 2% required in the Regulation 18 draft, together with the requirement in Policy SDP5 for at least 12 serviced plots.

Whilst the reduction to 1% is welcomed, the requirement should still be justified by evidence of demand, for example through the Council’s Self-Build Register. The policy’s flexibility provisions which allow plots to revert to affordable housing where there is no take-up are welcomed and should be retained.

Object

Representation ID: 3321

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst we broadly support the Council’s aspirations in relation to specialist and accessible housing, we consider that the requirements should be based on clear, up-to-date evidence of local need. Policy H11 requires all major
developments to provide a minimum of 25% of new homes to Building Regulations Part M4(2) (accessible and
adaptable dwellings) standard.

Whilst we do not object in principle, the requirement should be supported by robust evidence in the Housing Needs Assessment and applied with appropriate regard to viability and site-specific circumstances, consistent with national Planning Practice Guidance on optional technical standards.

Object

Representation ID: 3322

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Vistry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As we previously stated in our Regulation 18 representations, we object to the extent of draft employment allocation E1P.5 (Land at Long Road / Lower Yalberton Farm Holiday Park), which is identified in the Regulation 19 plan as a 4.7ha allocation (HELAA reference 21P012).

This draft allocation includes part of the land which Vistry Homes Ltd is promoting for residential development.

As demonstrated by the Indicative Masterplan at Appendix 2, the majority of the southern field under Vistry’s control is required for drainage attenuation and the main vehicular access serving the wider residential development to the north.

Whilst we do not object in principle to employment provision within the wider FGA, nor to employment floorspace on the parts of E1P.5 outside Vistry’s control, we maintain our objection to the extent of E1P.5 as currently drawn.

We therefore request again that draft allocation E1P.5 is amended to exclude the part of the site controlled by Vistry Homes Ltd, which is required to deliver drainage infrastructure and access for the residential development (referenced in the HELAA as sites 21P067, part of 22P001 and part of E1P.5).

In addition, any allocation on the remaining extent of E1P.5 should exclude B8 (storage and distribution) uses on residential amenity and access grounds.

As explained, the site would be served by a single vehicular access from Long Road, and it would be inappropriate to provide residential and industrial (particularly B8) traffic via the same access point.

We note that the general requirement in Policy E1 for a minimum of 50% Class B2 or E(g) provision reinforces the need for the extent and mix of E1P.5 to be reconsidered in light of these constraints.