Torbay Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Version and Consultation

H3T.1 should be removed from the draft Regulation 19 Local Plan before it is passed to the Inspector for examination.

It is understood that the landowner of HELAA site T21065 wrote to the Council at the Reg 18 consultation stage confirming that:
• They did not submit their land for allocation
• They were not consulted prior to inclusion
• The land is not available for housing
• They object to the allocation
Therefore, this land does not pass the reasonable prospect of delivery test (NPPF PM15(b)), and should have been removed prior to the Reg 19 consultation.

TORBAY DRAFT LOCAL PLAN - REGULATION 19 REPRESENTATION
OBJECTION TO ALLOCATION H3T.1
Maidencombe – North of Sladnor Park and around Jon Glanvill Autos (30 dwellings) (HELAA Sites T21065 & 21T143)
1. Summary Objection
Allocation H3T.1 is unsound and should be removed from the draft Regulation 19 (Preferred Options) Torbay Local Plan before it is passed to the Inspector for examination.
The allocation fails the tests of soundness as it is:
• Not justified (allocating a site that the Council’s evidence base identifies as significantly constrained and unsustainable)
• Not effective (land not available or deliverable)
• Not consistent with national policy, particularly NPPF policy PM15 (b & c)
________________________________________
2. Conflict with the NPPF – Unsustainable Development
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires plans to deliver a sustainable pattern of development (policy PM15 (b)).
H3T.1 proposes a large allocation (30 dwellings) in the countryside near an isolated rural village that is not identified in the Local Plan as a Strategic Location for Growth (i.e. not a Town Centre, Future Growth Area or Gateway Corridor).
Maidencombe has:
• No shops, services, schools, employment or health facilities
• No mains foul sewerage
• No safe pedestrian or cycle access to services
• A time-limited bus service
Key distances:
• Nearest primary school: 2,200m
• Nearest convenience store: 2,400m
• Routes are via Teignmouth Road, which is narrow, busy, and has no footpaths
This directly conflicts with Active Travel England Standing Advice, which requires local amenities to be within 800m walking distance via continuous footways.
As a result, the site would be inherently car-dependent, contrary to the NPPF’s requirement to reduce the need to travel and support sustainable development. It would also conflict with the Local Plan’s own spatial strategy.
________________________________________
3. HELAA Evidence Confirms Unsuitability
Torbay Council’s own HELAA assessments identify “Significant constraints”:
• Distance from services
• Landscape impact
• Car dependency
• No mains sewerage
• Impact on the wider Rocombe Valley
The HELAA concludes the site is:
• Within a Countryside Area
• Highly sensitive to change
• Unsuitable for major development
Allocating a site that the Council’s own evidence base identifies as significantly constrained and unsustainable is not justified.
________________________________________
4. Landscape Harm
The site lies within a landscape identified by the Torbay Landscape Character Assessment, as highly sensitive:
• AOLC 1A – Rolling Farmland (Barton)
• Updated (June 2025) as LCT 4C – Coastal Slopes and Combes with Settlement
Key characteristics include:
• Strong separation from urban Torbay
• Sparse, dispersed rural settlements
• Wide, open views across a complex folded landscape
The Landscape Assessment guidelines (2025) require:
“Protect the rural settlement pattern, ensuring future development respects the scale and complexity of the underlying landform.”
A large allocation of 30 dwellings would fundamentally erode this character and cause significant and irreversible landscape harm, contrary to the Local Plan evidence base.
________________________________________
5. County Wildlife Site & European Protected Species
The allocation lies within the Lower Gabwell Fields (Labrador Bay) County Wildlife Site, forming part of a strategic ecological network supporting:
• Cirl Bunting
• Greater Horseshoe Bat
These are European Protected Species, and the site is identified in the HELAA as a landscape connectivity zone for these species.
Draft Local Plan policies NC1 and NC2 require wildlife sites and protected species to be conserved, restored or enhanced.
A large residential development on this site would be incompatible with those policies and would result in ecological harm.
In addition to the above, the Devon Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) was published in May 2026, and the Habitat Map identifies T21065 as being in an area of BNG Uplift High Opportunity Area. This does not appear to have been taken into account.
________________________________________
6. Drainage and Flood Risk
There is:
• No mains foul sewerage
• Known and ongoing surface water flooding issues
There is no evidence that appropriate infrastructure can be delivered without unacceptable environmental impact, undermining effectiveness and deliverability.
________________________________________
7. Land Availability and Deliverability
At a public meeting held by the Maidencombe Residents’ Association on 8 January 2026, attended by:
• Local residents
• Cllr George Darling
• The landowner of T21065
The landowner confirmed:
• They did not submit their land for allocation
• They were not consulted prior to inclusion
• The land is not available for housing
• They object to the allocation
Cllr Darling confirmed that land which is not available and has no reasonable prospect of coming forward cannot be considered deliverable.
This directly fails the effectiveness test of soundness. An allocation opposed by all principal landowners has no realistic prospect of delivery and is therefore unsound.
________________________________________
8. Conclusion
Allocation H3T.1:
• Conflicts with NPPF policy PM15 (b & c)
• Is unsupported by the Council’s own HELAA and Landscape evidence
• Causes unacceptable landscape and ecological harm
• Is undeliverable due to landowner opposition
• Fails the tests of soundness
H3T.1 should be removed from the draft Regulation 19 Local Plan before it is passed to the Inspector for examination.