Close to the shops is not the same as safe to walk.

What the inspector decided

Nesscliffe is a community hub in Shropshire's plan, with a pub, school, village hall, convenience store and petrol station. The inspector accepted these were within a moderate walking distance, with a bus stop a modest walk away (paragraph 11). Distance was not in issue.

The concern was the route. There is no continuous footway. For most of the distance, residents would walk on a narrow, unlit road with limited verges. The inspector found that unlikely to be attractive or safe, particularly for families, people with pushchairs and anyone with mobility issues. With no cycleways or lighting, cycling was discouraged too (paragraphs 11, 12 and 30).

The appellant's transport statement proposed signs warning drivers of pedestrians in the road. The inspector found that would not make walking acceptable (paragraph 30). Two findings followed, each described as substantial harm: the site was not appropriately located, because residents would rely on the car, and it would not provide safe and satisfactory access for pedestrians.

The vehicle access, by contrast, was fine. The illustrative access appeared capable of providing adequate visibility and handling the traffic, and the council had no conclusive evidence otherwise (paragraph 28). The scheme therefore satisfied the test that often receives most attention in highway assessments, but not the test of safe pedestrian access.

Why it matters

1. Pedestrian access is a highway safety issue in its own right. The inspector dealt with it under highway safety, not just under sustainability. A safe junction does not make a safe site if the people living there have to walk in the carriageway.
2. A list of nearby facilities is of limited value on its own. Walking distances measured on a map say nothing about footway width, lighting or verges. Inspectors look at the route itself.
3. The appellant's own evidence supported the finding. The transport statement described the limited facilities and the lack of footways and cycleways. The inspector cited it as supporting the finding of car dependence (paragraph 29).
4. Car dependence reduces the benefits as well as adding harm. The social benefit of supporting local services was given only limited weight, partly because residents would be driving to them (paragraph 43). The same finding counted on both sides of the balance.
5. Comparable schemes must be comparable on the relevant facts. The appellant pointed to a nearby permission (14/03259/OUT). The inspector distinguished it: that site was closer to the village and provided a pedestrian path, so far less walking on the road was needed (paragraph 37).

That final point is of practical importance. On the inspector's analysis, the material difference between the two schemes was the provision of a pedestrian route.

Was the inspector right?

There is a fair argument on the other side. National policy has long accepted that opportunities for sustainable travel differ between urban and rural areas. Many villages have no continuous footway, and if every rural scheme had to provide one, a great deal of rural housing would never be built. A council that cannot show a five-year supply might have been expected to accept some car use as the price of new homes.

The answer lies in how the inspector framed the issue. The decision does not say that rural residents must be able to do without a car. It says the walk that was available would be unsafe, especially for the people least able to avoid it. That is a finding about safety and inclusive access, and the recognition in national policy that rural areas offer fewer travel choices does not extend to accepting an unsafe walking route for those least able to avoid it.

The decision also turned on several other harms: character and appearance, and an affordable housing obligation that did not secure the mix, tenure or amount. Even so, the transport findings were two of the four, and both were rated as substantial.

What to take into the next scheme

• Walk the route before the site is bought. Record footway width, gaps, lighting, verges, speed and where people would have to step into the road.
• Address the missing link directly. If a footway is needed, work out where it goes, whether it fits within the highway, and whether third-party land is involved. A highway boundary search answers that early.
• Secure it properly. A footway that relies on land outside the appellant's control needs a delivery route, such as a section 278 agreement or a Grampian condition with a realistic prospect of delivery.
• Put the transport evidence in at application stage. Here the transport statement arrived with the appeal. By that stage, the council's case had been formed without it.
• Test your comparators. If you rely on a nearby permission, check what it provided. If it had a footway and you do not, it will be used to distinguish your case.
• Think about who is walking. Assess the route for children walking to school, people with pushchairs and people with mobility impairments, and at different times of day.