Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3428

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Gallagher Ventures Limited

Agent: Pegasus Group

Strategic Policy H3: Housing Sites

Our client supports the principles of Strategic Policy H3 in allocating specific sites for residential development and in providing an indicative capacity for each, as this sets realistic expectations and corresponds to the overall anticipated level of growth, notwithstanding the insufficiency of that figure as set out above.

We are also supportive of the principle that this policy secures the provision of not just housing numbers but, in reality, good-quality homes, and also that sites should be developed at the highest density appropriate to their location and consistent with good design.

In this respect, the circumstances of each site will differ, and a reasonable approach to constraints and opportunities, for instance as set out in a Design and Access Statement, will allow proper assessment in this respect at application stage.

The inclusion of Sladnor Park (site H3T.2) as a residential allocation with an estimated capacity of 120 dwellings is supported and, although the extant planning permission at the site (P/2020/0315) is correctly noted, this is of limited bearing as the site is a perfectly reasonable proposition for residential redevelopment in any event.

Turning to the site notes, specifically:

“21T064 Subject to successful resolution of drainage issues”

this relates to the current planning application, in respect of which determination remains pending, and on which further commentary is provided in Section 5 of this submission.

As an overarching comment, however, drainage will shortly be resolved.

The notes also state:

“Due to its location within the coastal landscape, the bulk of the site will remain outside of the settlement boundary, with the exception of the development area broadly corresponding to the previously developed area of Sladnor Park.”

It is notable that, as shown in the excerpt below, the full ownership boundary of Sladnor Park is identified as an allocation on the draft proposals map, notwithstanding the retention of a significant proportion of the site within the Countryside Area.

This is not, however, inconsistent with the supporting notes above, as a comprehensive development will naturally include elements such as:

Strategic planting;
Public open space;
Habitat enhancement; and
Sustainable drainage.

None of these would independently conflict with expectations for Countryside Areas and would allow for greater flexibility across the site.

In practice, the previously developed parts of the site represent the most readily developable areas in any case, through a combination of established levels and topography, lack of protected trees, and existing infrastructure, thus limiting both constraints and additional costly engineering work required to deliver housing.

It is also noted that the proposed allocation remains contiguous with the defined Village Envelope of Maidencombe (denoted by the dashed black line in the excerpt below), rationalising the existing pattern of development in this location and reflecting the site’s close association with the village.

We would tangentially observe, however, that the village is neither scattered nor a hamlet; it is clearly a settlement for the purposes of the definition in the 2026 Framework and the application of its policies for decision-making in the future, and should be defined as such throughout the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 3429

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Gallagher Ventures Limited

Agent: Pegasus Group

Strategic Policy L1 appears to seek to cover all matters remotely “rural”, including Landscape Character Assessment, designated landscapes and protected habitats, while also setting the spatial framework for development proposals within this area, which, as shown on the draft proposals map, covers a substantial portion of the authority area.

In this respect, the policy wording:

“In the open countryside away from existing settlements, and in rural areas surrounding the three towns of Torbay, development will be resisted where this would lead to the loss of open countryside or creation of urban sprawl, or where it would encourage the merging of urban areas and surrounding settlements to the detriment of their special rural character and setting”

implicitly sets a presumption against development of virtually all currently undeveloped land.

By referring to land “away from existing settlements”, and because the extents of the Countryside Area and Undeveloped Coast are drawn tightly, usually contiguously with the existing built-up envelope of settlements (with the policy stating that these in turn define settlement boundaries), greenfield land is effectively being protected for its own sake, with seemingly no regard to the overwhelming need for development.

The full extent of these two self-imposed constraints is shown in the excerpt of the proposals map below. This prompts the question of whether these areas are genuinely of equal value and all require protection from anything other than a very limited range of development types, or whether they have simply been over-designated.

In the above respect, it is noteworthy that NDMP S5 of the 2026 Framework distinguishes between the acceptability of development proposals outside, but “physically well related to”, settlements and those outside settlements that are not well related, strongly favouring the former.

Although this remains subject to other considerations, such as housing land supply, appeal decisions have already interpreted the concept of “unmet need” broadly, including matters such as acute affordable housing need. Consequently, the restrictive nature of Policy L1 is likely to run contrary to national policy in respect of the location of new development.

Accordingly, although the Plan will be examined against the 2024 Framework, it is our view that this policy, insofar as its spatial role is concerned, will create a clear practical tension for decision-making immediately upon adoption if left unchanged.

The policy should therefore be amended, ideally through a comprehensive reassessment that focuses protection on those areas that are genuinely worthy of protection (or which can instead be protected through other landscape and ecology policies, such as Policy L3), or alternatively through the introduction of more flexible wording within the policy itself.

Comment

Representation ID: 3430

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Gallagher Ventures Limited

Agent: Pegasus Group

Strategic Policy HS sets out that the Local Plan proposes to deliver at least 8,000 dwellings over the period 2025-2045, equal to an average of 400 dwellings a year over the Plan period. Its trajectory suggests this coming forward conservatively at first, at 200-250 dwellings per year in the first five years of the Plan, before increasing steadily over the remainder of the Plan period.

In practice, therefore, even if the Council were to meet this trajectory, it would deliver just 1,050 dwellings in the first five years of the Plan, little over one fifth of its requirement and barely more than the 973-home national standard method requirement within the authority area in a single year.

This represents a wholly inadequate approach that will not even begin to meet the need for new homes arising within Torbay.

As set out earlier, these concerns are echoed by the Minister of State, Matthew Pennycook, in his letter of 11 June 2026, and his willingness to intervene in the local plan-making process has been well observed over the course of the previous two years, as is now reflected in the 2026 Framework at NDMP PM2(4).

We have set out previously our concerns that the level of housing planned for is almost entirely aligned with the rates of delivery achieved over the preceding period, yet that rate of delivery came up short even against the less ambitious housing requirement identified in the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030 before disintegrating almost entirely with the introduction of the new national standard method in December 2024 to yield a housing land supply of just 1.7 years.

It is clear that purposefully aiming for a housing supply that is less than the 495 dwellings per annum previously adopted, substantially less than that directed by the standard method, and aligned broadly with a rate of delivery that ultimately yielded a chronic and persistent housing land supply shortfall does not meet the national test of being “Positively Prepared” as set out at Paragraph 36(a) of the Framework, nor in practice indeed any of the other ensuing criteria set out at (b)-(d) inclusive.

With respect to the constraints faced by the authority, the Council is right to point out the physical limitations of the authority area’s size and its relationship to the coast, together with real-world considerations such as designated landscapes, protected habitats and areas subject to heightened flood risk.

However, in adopting a constraints-based approach to identifying housing targets, it appears that equal attention has been paid to self-imposed constraints that are entirely subjective.

Such constraints include the identified Countryside Area and Undeveloped Coast, which draft Strategic Policy L1 presumes should be protected from development in most circumstances. However, these self-imposed constraints are clearly inconsistent with the need to provide sufficient homes across the Plan period, which will necessarily require the release of at least some undeveloped land.

It is far better that this is undertaken in a planned manner.

There is also an overwhelming need to deliver affordable housing over the Plan period, with the lack of availability and affordability of housing identified as a key issue facing the area.

The previous consultation document identified that currently just 8% of Torbay’s housing stock is affordable, compared to 18% locally, and it is understood that the Council has its own programme for actively delivering affordable housing sites in an effort to remedy this disparity.

This is set against the backdrop that the Council’s supporting evidence shows that over the next 20 years the authority area will need some 9,260 dwellings, itself some 123% of the sum total of housing proposed under the emerging Plan.

Without a proactive approach to substantially increasing the supply of affordable homes, and in a climate of increasing societal polarisation and unaffordability, this pattern is only likely to compound and worsen over time.

As we have set out previously, the draft Plan trajectory is also relatively heavily reliant on the delivery of windfall sites of up to nine units.

While it is appropriate to include this factor in principle, particularly given the acute need to find new homes wherever possible, it should be borne in mind that most such sites will not represent “major development” in the terms of the Framework and thus will not be obliged to include an element of affordable housing.

This factor will therefore further reduce the Plan’s capacity to address the substantial deficit in affordable homes locally.

Comment

Representation ID: 3431

Received: 24/09/2026

Respondent: Gallagher Ventures Limited

Agent: Pegasus Group

Our clients are promoting Sladnor Park, Torquay as a sustainable location for residential development and are the site’s freehold owners. The site has been promoted historically, including at the most recent Regulation 18 consultation, by housebuilder and co-applicant Strongvox Ltd.

The site comprises a former holiday park, with some retained accommodation in the form of timber holiday lodges, a small proportion of which remain occupied for the time being, together with other disused but still physically present built fabric and supporting infrastructure. By any reasonable assessment, the site therefore comprises a mixture of undeveloped and previously developed land.

The respective proportions of greenfield and brownfield land within the overall extent of control have been agreed with the Council, as shown on the overlay drawing below. The brownfield land is principally located within the north-western part of the site, shown in yellow.

These areas broadly align with the area excluded from the Countryside Area designation as identified on the draft Local Plan Proposals Map.

The site also lies entirely within the Undeveloped Coast designation, although the outermost extent of this designation aligns with the site's western boundary adjoining the A379 Teignmouth Road and, in part, its southern boundary adjoining Rock House Lane.

As a consequence, whilst the site falls within the Undeveloped Coast designation, the designation itself follows established transport corridors and site boundaries in these locations rather than reflecting undeveloped coastal land throughout the entirety of the site.

This relationship is an important consideration when assessing the site's development potential, particularly given the presence of previously developed land, existing infrastructure and the site's established association with the built form of Maidencombe and the surrounding area.

(See attachments for additional information regarding the current application and site concerns)