Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3298

Received: 24/09/2026

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

The policy should be strengthened to align with the NPPF by placing greater emphasis on the conservation and enhancement of valued landscapes rather than solely avoiding loss of landscape characteristics. The definition of valued landscapes should be clearer and based on
identifiable attributes that contribute to their value, while areas afforded protection should be explicitly identified rather than potentially being considered valued landscapes. This would improve clarity, effectiveness and consistency with national policy.
Specifically, ‘avoid loss’ is not in line with the NPPF which seeks to protect and enhance valued landscapes. A policy that only seeks to avoid loss risks missing opportunities for enhancement and could permit gradual erosion of landscape quality.

Comment

Representation ID: 3299

Received: 24/09/2026

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

‘Development proposals that protect or enhance Local Green Spaces and that comply with other relevant policies will be permitted’. This statement does not comply with the NPPF and must state ‘protect and enhance’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3300

Received: 24/09/2026

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

‘Development that supports the planting of new trees or areas of woodland, especially in appropriate Devon Local Nature Recovery Areas, or which would include public access woodland schemes, will be encouraged where they conserve or enhance biodiversity’. This statement does not comply with the NPPF and must state ‘protect and enhance’. The required use of native species of local provenance should also be added to this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 3301

Received: 24/09/2026

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

Trees elsewhere
‘Commensurate with the loss’ is weak and does not meet the requirements of the NPPF.
Replacement must deliver overall enhancement.
This policy does not apply the mitigation hierarchy. The policy should be reworded to demonstrate avoidance and minimisation before loss is permitted.

Comment

Representation ID: 3302

Received: 24/09/2026

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

Hedgerow loss should normally be replaced on at least a metre-for-metre basis, with a preference for achieving a net gain in connectivity and ecological value’. To demonstrate compliance with the NPPF, ‘a preference for’ must be replaced with ‘a requirement for’.
Whilst the proposed compensation approach represents a positive attempt to secure replacement planting, it risks placing undue emphasis on tree numbers rather than ecological function. Mature and veteran trees provide a range of biodiversity, landscape, carbon-storage and ecosystem-service benefits that cannot be replaced for many decades. A compensation metric based solely
on trunk girth does not adequately capture habitat quality, ecological connectivity, canopy volume, species value, deadwood resource, bat-roost potential or the irreplaceable characteristics associated with older trees. The policy should therefore make clear that retention of existing trees remains the priority and that compensation planting is not, in itself, evidence that ecological losses
have been adequately addressed.
Loss of trees, woodland, traditional orchards, Devon hedgebanks and hedgerows must first be avoided through site selection, layout and design. Where loss is demonstrated to be unavoidable and acceptable under other policies, compensation must be based on the ecological, arboricultural, landscape, historic and ecosystem-service value of the feature lost. Numerical
replacement ratios are a minimum starting point and do not, by themselves, demonstrate adequate compensation.
Compensation proposals must demonstrate:
 no net reduction in long-term canopy cover;
 replacement of the structural and ecological functions lost;
 maintenance or strengthening of habitat connectivity;
 use of locally appropriate species and genetic provenance;
 adequate soil volume and rooting environment;
 long-term protection, management and funding;
 replacement of failed planting; and
 monitoring against measurable establishment and condition targets.
Ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees and other irreplaceable habitats are subject to the separate irreplaceable-habitat test and cannot be compensated through standard tree-replacement
ratios.

Comment

Representation ID: 3303

Received: 24/09/2026

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

We welcome the inclusion of this strong policy. However, we recommend a number of minor amendments to ensure that its intended outcomes are delivered effectively in practice.
Point ‘I’ does not correctly apply the mitigation hierarchy. Reference to minimise is missing and must be included to fully reflect the mitigation hierarchy.
The text ‘including supporting habitats outside of the designation which ensures the favourable conservation status of the site’ could better reflect the legal position surrounding functionally linked land, for example ‘including functionally linked and supporting habitat beyond designated site boundaries where these are necessary to maintain or restore the site's conservation objectives and ecological integrity’.
‘Particular attention must be paid to Greater Horseshoe Bat flight paths, and Cirl Bunting’ should be replaced with ‘Particular attention must be paid to Greater Horseshoe Bats, Cirl Buntings and other species of principal importance, including the protection, enhancement and restoration of habitats, commuting routes and ecological connectivity’.
The use of the phrase ‘Provide a measurable and proportionate net gain in biodiversity’ may unintentionally suggest less than mandatory BNG requirements and should be replaced with ‘Deliver a measurable biodiversity net gain in accordance with Policy NC2’.
Given the title of the policy, the opening statement ‘All development for the purposes of conservation and enhancement of the natural assets within the Bay will be supported’ should not be provided in isolation. An additional sentence is required, for example ‘Development that conserves, restores and enhances biodiversity, geodiversity and ecological connectivity, and contributes to nature recovery, will be supported’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3304

Received: 24/09/2026

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

‘Where permanent or long-term temporary habitat loss or direct reduction of habitat condition is identified, bespoke compensation measures will need to be agreed’ infers that compensation could legitimise habitat loss. This text needs to be rephrased to make it clear that compensation
does not override the protection afforded to designated sites.
The policy protects ‘internationally and nationally designated sites’, which does not cover functionally linked habitat, supporting habitat, ecological connectivity bat sustenance zones or commuting routes. Additional text is required, for example ‘Protection extends to functionally
linked land, supporting habitat and ecological networks necessary to maintain the conservation objectives and ecological integrity of designated sites’.
Reference to irreplaceable habitats is required within this policy, for example ‘Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat will not be permitted except in wholly exceptional circumstances’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3305

Received: 24/09/2026

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

Given Torbay's location within the South Hams SAC consultation zone and the importance of Greater Horseshoe Bat sustenance zones and commuting routes, reference to this species is required, for example ‘Greater Horseshoe Bats and the maintenance of supporting habitats, dark corridors, flight paths and ecological connectivity associated with the South Hams SAC’.
‘Where appropriate, a monitoring scheme must be agreed’. This text is weak. More robust text is required, for example ‘Where mitigation, compensation or significant enhancement measures are proposed, a proportionate monitoring and management scheme must be secured’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3306

Received: 24/09/2026

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

‘On all development sites, a measurable 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) must be achieved, where development is exempt as set out within The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024’ should be replaced with ‘All development subject to the statutory biodiversity gain condition must deliver a measurable minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain’.
‘The 10% BNG shall be delivered on-site wherever possible’ should be strengthened in line with government policy, for example ‘The 10% BNG shall be delivered primarily on-site unless it can be clearly demonstrated that an alternative approach would deliver greater biodiversity benefits’.
Additional text in relation to priorities for habitat creation should be provided, for example ‘Priority should be given to delivering biodiversity net gain in locations that improve ecological connectivity, strengthen the Nature Recovery Network and support the conservation objectives of protected sites and their supporting habitats’.

Comment

Representation ID: 3307

Received: 24/09/2026

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

‘Light spillage or glare will be minimised to an acceptable level’. The tern ‘acceptable’ is subjective. The text should be rephrased to state ‘Light spill, glare and sky glow will be avoided wherever possible and otherwise minimised through sensitive design, siting and specification’.