Safe, Sustainable Travel Torbay

We spoke in objection of this redevelopment on the basis that it was originally billed as a ‘car-free’ development but even with anticipated huge modal shifts, 40% of journeys will still be undertaken by private vehicle. Torbay Council Officer’s did not recommend any improvements to off-site sustainable transport infrastructure and with only a tiny sum of £5,000 as a contribution to this. Without this, the Transport Plan is entirely unfeasible.

Torquay’s Union Square redevelopment is being billed as a once-in-a-generation regeneration project. With ~£11 million in Town Deal funding, ~100 new homes, retention of the Pannier Market, and a public square, it’s easy to see why many are excited. Turley+3torbay.gov.uk+3torbay.gov.uk+3

But here’s the thing: ambition on paper does not automatically deliver ambition in practice.

What was promised—and what we discovered

• The developers say this will be “car-free.” Yet the Travel Plan admits that in the best case, ~40% of journeys will still be by car. That undercuts the “car-free” label entirely.
• Even worse: the vehicle-trip estimates are based on TRICS data from places like Manchester, Nottingham, Carlisle—cities with strong public transport and cycling networks. Torquay is not like that. Without comparable infrastructure, expecting those low car numbers is optimistic at best, and dangerously misleading at worst.

What Torbay’s own policies say

• The Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) aims for safe, attractive walking & cycling routes.
• Local Transport Plan 4, adopted recently, sets out ambitions for reducing car dependency, boosting active travel, improving health & accessibility.
• Torbay has declared a Climate Emergency, with net zero targets for the Council and aspirations for the area.

Plus, the Planning Contributions SPD (2022) sets out concrete sums for sustainable transport contributions per dwelling. For Union Square’s ~100 homes, the SPD’s starting point is around £71k. Yet in the officer’s recommendation, only £5,000 is being proposed. The SPD also states that these figures are starting points, with room for more where development impacts traffic, provides no on-site parking, or requires safety improvements.

Why infrastructure is not optional

Infrastructure isn’t a “nice extra.” It’s essential.

• Union Street’s painted advisory cycle lanes put cyclists between buses and car doors—dangerous.
• There’s no safe route in the opposite direction, and no cycle phase at key junctions.
• Disabled residents, visitors, delivery/service vehicles—even a “car-free” development needs to plan for them.
• Without safe walking, cycling, and accessibility, we risk failing those who need it most and locking in car dependency, adding to congestion and undermining health, equity, and climate goals.

Cllr Swithin Long also spoke against the application. Like us, he was disappointed that the development is not doing more for the local community — not least by only meeting the minimum contribution for affordable housing rather than going further. It underlines the same theme we raised: if Union Square is truly about regeneration, it should be delivering more than the bare minimum, whether on housing, active travel, or wider community benefit.

In response, Phil Jones, from Willmott Dixon, appointed by Torbay Council, reiterated that cycle parking and amenities will be incorporated, that the development sits on a “cycle route,” and that it is “not a highways scheme.” None of this addresses the core concerns. The Travel Plan remains completely unrealistic, the so-called “cycle route” along Union Street is extremely dangerous, and paint on the road will not “encourage cycling.” Without safe, connected infrastructure, parking racks are just window dressing.

Experience, evidence, and Torbay’s own LCWIP show otherwise: people don’t need encouragement, they need safe, coherent infrastructure. Without that, cycle parking and paint on the road are meaningless gestures.