Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan 2025 Online Version and Consultation

Support

Representation ID: 667

Received: 02/02/2026

Respondent: Torbay United (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

It is a positive start, and as a member of the faith community in Torbay, I am grateful that such work is going on. However, there are areas of concern from other leaders and me in the faith community, which we have worked to articulate in this document. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q0XAPMM0s3wT9BiHxwCN0gWbM2jS4Xeu/view?usp=sharing

This note responds to the draft Local Plan, 2025–2045, and specifically addresses the concerning lack of references to faith communities, their places of worship, and their community contributions in the context of the next 20 years in Torbay. It is a reply to the draft Regulation 18 Plan, specifically the PDF version.

Overall summary

This note is written from a Christian perspective and involves Christian participation, but we aim to work alongside other faith communities as well. While not always, the contributions of various faith groups often share similar traits, even if their doctrines differ. We believe these communities are characterised by, for example, support for marriage and family life, commitment to community and those in need within it, acts of self-sacrifice for the greater good of others, gathering regularly, mutual support and encouragement, and creating spaces of well-being for attendees.

Regarding places of worship, we would add that they also serve as community centres for the surrounding areas, welcoming people who are not necessarily of the faith. These attributes—supporting commitment, acts of service, community, and care—are virtues that should be promoted and form the four square components of “the landscape to thrive,” as outlined in the Local Plan. We assert that planning for the next 20 years without the active involvement of Torbay's faith communities will not, or may not, result in a thriving community. The essence of the town plan, especially as detailed in Chapter 1, is at risk if it fails to involve, promote, and acknowledge the vital role of faith communities and their places of worship.

Consequently, we argue that the current plan is woefully deficient, and its revision in summer 2026 must give much greater regard to faith communities, particularly places of worship, in shaping Torbay’s development. We also suggest ways to foster cooperation and collaboration towards these goals.


Brief history
Torbay, through its three towns, has a varied history, with Brixham in particular focusing on the fishing industry. In this regard, the work of Christian missions with the fishing community over the years, leading up to the present day and continuing, has been vital. They have been there when fishermen haven’t returned home, leaving families in need. They have supported the communities during tough economic times, enduring the ups and downs of commerce and weather. Even now, the Fishermen’s Mission is located right in the centre of the industrial fishing market and remains very proactive.¹
¹ https://www.fishermensmission.org.uk/
In contrast, although Torquay and later Paignton have relatively recent histories, there has been a notable presence of institutions such as Torre Abbey and St Michael’s Chapel. More critically for the current landscape was the substantial growth during the Victorian era, evident in the distinctive villas as well as the numerous churches across Torquay and Paignton, many of which are still actively used. Some serve unique purposes, for example for the Greek Orthodox community. There are also very vibrant larger churches of various denominations, including church plants. Additionally, some smaller churches thrive in their own right.

Now, nearly 150 years after their construction, these buildings occupy a significant place in the urban landscape of Torbay. They serve as centres of community life for many Christians in the area. There is a Jewish community that once had a synagogue but now gravitates towards Exeter, though it remains a feature of Torbay life. There is also a small Islamic and Sikh community. Their relative sizes should not be overlooked, as other community groups of similar size often have a substantial impact on community and council policies. We believe even the smaller faith communities tend to have a greater level of involvement and commitment than their size might suggest. All of these groups display features which we outline below, and which are also vital for future town planning.

Furthermore, Torbay has contributed to Christian and religious life. For example, at St Matthias on Torbay's northern end, a funeral service shortly after the First World War is believed to be where the phrase “there are no atheists in the trenches” was first used. On the southern end, at the vicarage of Brixham—now the Berry Head Hotel—was the Scottish Anglican cleric Henry Francis Lyte, who authored the world‑famous hymn and anthem, “Abide with Me.” Torbay has indeed played its part. We believe it will continue to do so, provided it has the support and resources from initiatives like the new town plan.
References within the draft town plan
Some of us have read the 308 pages and noted that there is no reference to faith either generally or in the context of faith communities. Specifically, there is no mention of Christians in any way. There is one reference to worship in the context of a place of worship, and even then, Policy 5.34, in the context of providing community facilities, mentions places of worship at the end of the list. This list includes higher‑priority facilities such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open spaces, cultural buildings, and public houses, with places of worship only appearing last.

The fact that these other community facilities are said to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments shows, in our opinion, considerable irony, given that places of worship have such limited, narrow, and minimal mention within the town plan. The document further states that the town plan should prevent the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services. We do not see any real commitment to that principle in relation to places of worship and faith communities.
In stark contrast, references to well‑being occur 18 times, thriving eight times, and mental health twice. We support the importance of all these. Nothing in this note aims to diminish or criticise these priorities. However, we contend that a vital element for their realisation is the recognition and promotion of faith communities and places of worship.
We expand on this because we believe the town plan is fundamentally very good. Strategic Priority 5 concerns building better communities with homes, spaces, and opportunities that people deserve—and, we would add, need. This priority outlines specific objectives in Policy 1.52, which we fully endorse and support.
However, important elements are omitted. Regarding the People priority (2.1 and subsequent points), we again support efforts to improve well‑being and reduce social isolation. Faith communities do extensive work for their own members and often reach out to wider groups, especially those who are isolated, lonely, elderly, or poor. Faith communities are essential actors in implementing the town plan; they do not seek these amendments for self‑promotion but simply want their role and contributions recognised within this framework.

Chapter 5 is central to this element, and we believe it is excellent as far as it goes. The five primary objectives outlined there are fundamental to the work of faith communities, which makes their omission striking. This is reflected in Strategic Policy SC1, beginning at 5.12. We support the notion that residential developments should enhance well‑being and health, including spiritual health alongside physical and mental health. The absence of any mention of spirituality, in the broadest sense, within the bullet points of Policy SC1 is particularly concerning. How can good spiritual health be omitted when healthy food options are listed? Spiritual health is not the same as mental health.

When the plan expands, for example at 5.15, it overlooks the impact of faith on communities such as the elderly, for whom faith can be a vital part of later life. It also neglects the work of faith organisations in assisting those in need, such as through food banks and similar initiatives. A healthier, thriving community in Torbay is, in part, materially supported by faith communities. Yet none of this is reflected in the town plan.
This is essential when considering Policy 5.17. All building developments must focus on promoting healthier outcomes. For larger schemes, this should include providing places of worship—potentially shared among faith communities—for residents, including those who may have moved from elsewhere, to facilitate their spiritual needs. While we acknowledge statutory minimum requirements, we hope Torbay will exceed them in pursuit of these admirable aims.

Throughout the town plan, there must be greater recognition of the importance of faith communities and opportunities for them to have places of worship. We raise this not solely because of our faith, but because of the evidence.

Suggested policy responses
In brief, we would be willing to suggest detailed changes if invited to do so as residents and active participants in this area:

We would welcome the Local Plan, especially where it supports community well‑being and recognises the importance of faith groups.

We would support Strategic Policy SS; the sixth bullet point should be strengthened to read: “Support and encourage community action and well‑being.”

We support Strategic Policy HS, particularly its reference to partnership with the community, where the potential of faith communities could be transformative and should be explicitly mentioned.

We support Strategic Policy TCS, which should include clearer references to community and social facilities, especially in clauses 3, 8, 9, and 10.

We support Strategic Policy SCS but request a reference to cultural and social facilities in clause 4, including faith communities in the justification.

We support Policy SC5, but it should include social infrastructure in the second sentence. While the justification references places of worship, this lone mention underestimates their importance.

We support Strategic Policy INS.

We support Policy IN1; Clause 5 could be strengthened by including community well‑being.

Conclusion
We do not claim there has been a deliberate attempt to exclude faith communities, Christian or otherwise, from Torbay’s future. However, the near‑total omission is astonishing given their proven contribution to thriving communities and flourishing individuals. We believe the town plan cannot proceed as a true blueprint for the next twenty years if it fails to recognise this role.
We wish to support the council constructively and would welcome the inclusion of a dedicated section acknowledging faith communities and their role in enhancing well‑being and community life. We are happy to provide draft wording or suggested amendments if helpful and look forward to working collaboratively to ensure these contributions are properly reflected.

Support

Representation ID: 1105

Received: 02/02/2026

Respondent: Torbay United (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

The essence of the town plan, especially as detailed in chapter 1, is at risk if it fails to involve, promote, and acknowledge the vital role of faith communities and their places of worship. Consequently, we argue that the current plan is woefully deficient, and its revision in summer 2026 must give much greater regard to faith communities, particularly places of worship, in shaping Torbay’s development. We also suggest ways to foster co operate on and collaborate on towards these goals.

Object

Representation ID: 1106

Received: 02/02/2026

Respondent: Torbay United (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Faith communities provide significant benefits to community well‑being, health, social cohesion and should be recognised in the plan.

There is no reference to faith either generally or in the context of faith communities. Specifically, there is no mention of Christians in any way. There is one reference to worship in the context of a place of worship, and even then, 5.34, in the context of providing community facilities, mentions places of worship at the end of the list. This list includes higher priorities such as local shops, meeting
places, sports venues, open spaces, cultural buildings, and public houses, with places of worship only appearing last. The fact that these other community facilities are said to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments shows, in our opinion, considerable irony, given that places of worship have such limited, narrow, and lesser mention within the town plan. The document further states that the town plan should
prevent the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services. We do not see any real commitment to that principle in relation to places of worship and faith communities.

Strategic priority number 5 is about building better communities with homes, spaces, and opportunities that people deserve and, we would probably add, need. This outlines specific objectives, 1.52. Again, we fully endorse these objectives. They are very well considered, and we support them. However, they omit some important elements, as noted here.

Regarding the people priority, 2.1 and subsequent points, we again support efforts to improve well-being and reduce social isolation. Faith communities do extensive work for their own members and often reach out to broader groups, especially those who are isolated, lonely, elderly, or poor. Faith communities are essential actors in implementing the town plan; they do not seek these amendments for self-glory but want their role and contributions recognised within this framework.

Of course, Chapter 5 is central to this element, and we believe it is excellent, as far as it goes. The five primary objectives outlined there are also fundamental to the work of faith communities, which makes the omission in this chapter quite striking. This is reflected in strategic policy SC1, starting at 5.12. We naturally support the notion that residential developments should enhance well-being and health, including spiritual health alongside physical and mental health.

The absence of any mention of spirituality, in the broadest sense, within the bullet points of policy SC1 is particularly serious and concerning. How can good spiritual health be missing when healthy food options are listed? Spiritual health is not the same as mental health. When the plan expands, for example at 5.15, it overlooks the impact of faith on communities, such as the elderly, for whom faith can be a vital part of life in later years. It also neglects the work of faith organisations in assisting those in need, such as through food banks and similar initiatives. A healthier, thriving community in Torbay is, in part, materially supported by faith communities. Yet nothing of this is reflected in the town plan. This is essential when considering 5.17.

All building developments must focus on promoting healthier outcomes. For larger schemes, this should include providing places of worship, potentially shared among faith communities, for residents, possibly those who have moved from afar, to facilitate their spiritual needs in these new developments. While we acknowledge the statutory minimum requirements, we hope that Torbay will exceed them with these admirable aims.

Throughout the town plan and beyond, there must be greater recognition of the importance, encouragement, and opportunities for faith communities to have places of worship. We do not speak of this solely because of our faith, but because of the evidence.

In brief, we would be able to suggest detailed changes if given the opportunity, as outlined below, should you invite us to do so as residents and active participants in this area.
1. We would welcome the Local Plan, especially in areas that support the local community's well-being and recognise the importance of faith groups.
2. We would support Strategic Policy SS; the sixth bullet point should be strengthened to read "Support and encourage community action and well-being.”
3. We support Strategic Policy HS, especially its reference to partnering with the community to find sustainable solutions, where the potential of faith communities could be transformative. Their role should be explicitly mentioned in the supporting justification for the policy.
4. We would support the Strategic Policy TCS. It should include clearer and more specific references to the importance of community and social facilities alongside the mix of commercial and residential uses, especially in clauses 3, 8, 9, and 10.
5. We support Strategic Policy SCS but request a reference to cultural and social facilities in clause 4, including a mention of the importance of faith communities and their facilities in the explanatory justification.
6. We support Policy SC5, but it should include social infrastructure in the list mentioned in its second sentence. The justified reasoning here references places of worship, which is welcomed. However, this appears to be the only such mention throughout the document, significantly underestimating the importance of places of worship in sustaining community well-being, inclusion, and cohesion across the Bay. The plan should incorporate several other such references.
7. We would support the Strategic Policy INS. 8. We support Policy IN1. Clause 5 could be strengthened by including a reference to community well-being among the broader contributions listed.