Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3262

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

General comments
Nature policies
We welcome the overall direction of the Plan's nature policies and are encouraged by the strong
emphasis on biodiversity conservation, nature recovery, biodiversity net gain, ecological connectivity and the protection of internationally important sites and species. Collectively, these policies provide a robust framework for securing positive outcomes for nature. However, we
consider there are two important policy areas which are missing.
Firstly, whilst the policies establish a framework for protecting biodiversity and assessing impacts, they do not specify the standards expected for ecological survey or assessment. The Plan should require ecological surveys, assessments and mitigation strategies to be undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced ecologists and prepared in accordance with current recognised
professional standards and guidance, including those published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). As the professional body for ecologists and environmental managers, CIEEM provides industry-standard guidance that helps ensure
ecological work is robust, consistent and undertaken in accordance with best practice. Including such a requirement would provide greater certainty for applicants and decision-makers and help ensure that planning decisions are informed by a reliable and proportionate ecological evidence base. In our experience, the quality of ecological information submitted in support of planning
applications can vary considerably, and inadequate surveys or assessments can lead to impacts on biodiversity being overlooked or underestimated. A clear policy requirement for adherence to recognised professional standards would therefore help secure better outcomes for nature and more consistent decision-making across the planning system.
Secondly, whilst the policies provide strong protection for statutory designated sites, they largely overlook a number of important non-statutory sites and habitats, including Priority Habitats, County Wildlife Sites, Other Sites of Wildlife Importance, species-rich grasslands and traditional orchards. These assets are often of considerable biodiversity value and form an essential
component of the local Nature Recovery Network. The Plan should explicitly recognise their protection, enhancement and restoration to ensure that the full range of Torbay's ecological resource is effectively safeguarded and supported.
Continuity
Whilst we recognise and welcome the inclusion of reference to the environment in many sections within the draft Local Plan, we also urge the need for environment, nature, nature recovery and climate to be embedded consistently throughout the plan and given the weight and level of resource needed to deliver this. Throughout the document it is apparent that policies have been written without specialist ecological input, which is often to the detriment of the environment.
Policies are also inconsistent in their references to nature. It is essential that the County Ecologist, or person with similar knowledge and skills, comment on the entirety of this document to ensure that the importance of nature is woven into each and every section. This is required in order to ensure that the vision for ‘To conserve and enhance the richness and diversity of the built, historic, marine and natural environments,’ becomes a reality. A 'nature everywhere' approach should be reflected within every policy.
Compliance
The Plan is not currently sound because elements of its natural-environment policies are not sufficiently clear, consistent or effective and do not fully reflect current legislation, national policy and guidance. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides a clear statement that planning policies and decisions should ‘contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment’. In this document, we have identified the principal areas of concern and propose replacement wording intended to address these shortcomings and make the Plan sound, legally compliant and effective.
Native species
The Local Plan currently contains limited reference to the use of native species. This does not represent a coherent or adequate approach to landscape planting, biodiversity recovery or climate resilience. We would strongly welcome a clear policy commitment within the Local Plan to require
the use of native and locally appropriate species for all landscape planting associated with new development. Wherever possible, these species should be locally sourced from Devon and preferably Torbay, to ensure genetic suitability, improved establishment rates and long-term ecological resilience. To enable this, the Plan should also support the development of local tree nurseries and seed hubs. The Devon Local Nature Recovery Network Habitat Suitability Mapping provides a high level of spatial and ecological detail and offers a robust evidence base for the creation of appropriate, site-specific species mixes.
Embedding these commitments within the Local Plan would ensure that landscape planting contributes effectively to biodiversity recovery, climate adaptation and the delivery of a genuinely sustainable and resilient development strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 3263

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

From the opening pages, the Plan presents an incomplete description of its environmental purpose. In Figure 1, ‘What is a Local Plan?’, the reference to ‘environmental protection’ should be amended to ‘environmental protection and enhancement’. The NPPF requires planning
policies and decisions not only to protect the natural environment, but also to contribute to and enhance it. This distinction is important and should be established from the outset, then applied consistently throughout the Plan. The same amendment is required in Figure 2, where reference
to ‘environmental protection’ should be replaced with ‘protection and enhancement’.
Figure 1 should also explicitly recognise climate change mitigation and adaptation as a central purpose of the Local Plan. Given the scale and urgency of the climate and ecological emergencies, climate change should be clearly identified in this introductory description rather than addressed only in later chapters. The statement ‘It seeks to minimise damage to the natural environment’ is inadequate and does not reflect the positive role that the planning system must play in nature recovery. Merely
minimising damage sets an unacceptably low ambition and fails to recognise the need to protect, restore and enhance the natural environment and deliver measurable gains for biodiversity.
This sentence should be replaced with ‘It seeks to protect, restore and enhance the natural environment’.
Figure 3 – ‘Protect Torbay’s Natural…’ should be replaced with ‘Protect and enhance Torbay’s Natural…’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3264

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

‘To safeguard existing and maximise opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in and around developments to deliver a net gain for biodiversity’ should be replaced with ‘To protect existing biodiversity, avoid and minimise ecological harm, strengthen ecological networks and maximise opportunities for habitat creation and enhancement, delivering measurable biodiversity net gain
and supporting nature recovery’.
‘To provide a network of recreation and Green Infrastructure including Suitable Alternative Natural
Greenspace (SANG) to relieve recreational and other pressure on the South Hams Special Area of Conservation and other critical environmental assets’ should be replaced with ‘To protect, enhance and expand a connected network of multifunctional green and blue infrastructure, including Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), to meet community needs and avoid
or mitigate recreational and other pressures on the South Hams Special Area of Conservation and other sensitive environmental assets’.
‘The safeguard the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land to assist with food security in a changing environment’ should be replaced with ‘To safeguard the Best and Most Versatile agricultural land, recognising its importance for food security and resilience to climate change’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3265

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Figure 4 – again ‘protection’ alone is referred to. This needs to be rephrased to state ‘protection and enhancement’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3266

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

‘All development should contribute to safeguarding the area’s natural, historic and built environment’ should be replaced with ‘All development should contribute to conserving, restoring and enhancing the area's natural, historic and built environment, delivering measurable
improvements for biodiversity wherever possible’.
‘Proposals for housing on previously developed land within the settlement boundary will be supported unless they cause substantial harm to the economy, environment or amenity’ should be replaced with ‘Proposals for housing on previously developed land within the settlement boundary will be supported unless they would result in unacceptable harm to the economy, environment or
amenity. Development should contribute to the protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and support opportunities for biodiversity gain’.
‘The council will apply the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development to proposals for brownfield regeneration within settlement boundaries that meet these criteria, even where the Local Plan’s housing target is exceeded’. The strong policy support for brownfield redevelopment is concerning because previously developed land can support habitats and species of high
ecological value. Brownfield sites are not necessarily of low biodiversity importance and can provide important refuges for wildlife, particularly in urban areas. The policy should therefore avoid creating a blanket presumption in favour of redevelopment and should instead make clear
that proposals must fully assess ecological value and deliver the protection, restoration and enhancement of biodiversity. This text should be replaced with ‘Proposals for the regeneration of previously developed land within settlement boundaries will be supported where they constitute sustainable development, deliver high-quality places, and protect, restore and enhance the natural environment, including securing biodiversity gains where appropriate’.
‘Major development proposals outside the built-up area, Future Growth Areas and allocated sites will only be supported where all of the following are met: The proposal is subject to an environmental assessment that shows that:
i) it is acceptable in terms of landscape, biodiversity and infrastructure impacts, including consideration of the cumulative impact of development and;
ii) It is demonstrated that there is no likely significant effect, alone or in combination, on European Wildlife sites (or equivalent designation); and
iii) Is demonstrated to meet an economic, social or environmental need that significantly and demonstrably outweigh the impacts of the proposal.’
The term ‘acceptable’ is weak and subjective in this context and does not reflect the mitigation hierarchy or the NPPF's emphasis on environmental enhancement. Criterion iii) is insufficiently clear regarding how the need for a proposal would be assessed and what impacts are being weighed against that need. As drafted, it could allow significant environmental harm to be justified by a broadly defined economic, social or environmental benefit, potentially undermining the Plan's wider environmental objectives. Policy intended to govern major development in the countryside must also include reference to enhancement. Text should be reworded to:
‘Major development proposals outside built-up areas, Future Growth Areas and allocated sites will only be supported where all of the following criteria are met:
i) The proposal is supported by sufficient environmental information, including any assessment required by legislation, demonstrating that adverse effects on landscape character, biodiversity, green infrastructure and community infrastructure have been avoided, minimised and appropriately mitigated, taking account of cumulative effects;
ii) It can be demonstrated, through Habitats Regulations Assessment where required, that the proposal will not result in a likely significant effect, alone or in combination with other plans and projects, on a Habitats Site;
iii) The proposal addresses an identified economic, social or environmental need that cannot reasonably be met within a settlement boundary, Future Growth Area or allocated site, and the benefits of the proposal demonstrably outweigh any residual adverse effects; and
iv) The proposal contributes to the protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment, including the recovery of nature and biodiversity’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3267

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

‘Priority species such as Cirl Buntings and Greater Horseshoe Bats will be safeguarded’ should be replaced with ‘Priority species, including Cirl Buntings and Greater Horseshoe Bats, and the habitats upon which they depend, will be protected, restored and enhanced to support their longterm conservation’.
All development will be required to adhere to the drainage hierarchy and minimise or reduce surface water draining into combined sewers, in order to safeguard the Marine Special Area of Conservation’ The discharge of surface water to combined sewer systems should not be supported, as it increases pressure on already constrained infrastructure and contributes to the risk of pollution from combined sewer overflows. Development should instead be required to follow the drainage hierarchy and incorporate sustainable drainage measures from the outset, providing a more effective, resilient and environmentally sustainable long-term solution. The text
above should be replaced with ‘All development will be required to adhere to the drainage hierarchy. The discharge of surface water to combined sewer systems will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that no reasonable alternative exists. Development must
incorporate sustainable drainage measures that protect water quality and contribute to the protection of the Marine Special Area of Conservation’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3268

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Comments as above in relation to the use of combined sewer systems are also relevant here and text should be updated in line with the above comments.
The policy currently lacks any reference to urban greening or green infrastructure. Given the important role that green infrastructure plays in supporting biodiversity, climate adaptation, sustainable drainage, air quality, health and wellbeing, the policy should include a requirement for
development to contribute positively to the greening of Torquay Town Centre through the provision of trees, green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements. The following text should be included: ‘Development should contribute to the greening of the town centre through the
incorporation of high-quality green infrastructure, including street trees, green roofs, green walls, sustainable drainage features and the creation of biodiverse public spaces’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3269

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

‘Particular attention should be given to the protection of Cirl Bunting habitat’ should be replaced with ‘Particular attention shall be given to the protection, restoration and enhancement of habitats supporting Cirl Buntings and other priority species’.
Reference to cirl buntings and/or greater horseshoe bats has frequently been included in a number of policies. Whilst this is welcome, it is not clear why some policies include reference to both species while others are limited to cirl buntings. It is common for these species to utilise
similar habitats and therefore it is considered likely that for the majority of policies, reference to both species is required.

Comment

Representation ID: 3270

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

‘The role of Goodrington as a leisure and employment hub will be promoted and enhanced, whilst protecting the area’s environmental assets and providing resilience to climate change’ should be replaced with ‘The role of Goodrington as a leisure and employment hub will be promoted and enhanced, whilst protecting, restoring and enhancing the area’s environmental assets and
strengthening its resilience to climate change’.
‘Priority species such as Greater Horseshoe Bats and Cirl Buntings and their habitats will be safeguarded, and any impacts mitigated’ should be replaced with ‘Priority species, including Greater Horseshoe Bats and Cirl Buntings, and their supporting habitats will be safeguarded, restored and enhanced, with any adverse impacts avoided, minimised and appropriately
mitigated’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3271

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Devon Wildlife Trust (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Comments as per SDT2. The policy currently lacks any reference to urban greening or greeninfrastructure. Text should be updated as above.