# Sleepy Corner, Stibb Cross, Torrington (footway condition) - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: O Marigold - **Authority:** Torridge (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010706 - **Application reference:** 1/0425/2025/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against condition 10 of an outline permission for one self-build dwelling, requiring a 1.2 m footway along the A388 verge to the Stibb Cross footway network before occupation - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6, DM3, TR3(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2018 ST10 - **Main issues:** whether the footway condition is necessary and reasonable for access and highway safety - **Tags:** conditions-appeal, s73-variation, self-build, rural-lane-no-footway, psed, inclusive-access, existing-users-argument, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A condition appeal on an outline permission for one self-build house beside the A388 at Stibb Cross, Devon. The Council required a 1.2 m footway along the grass verge to the village footway before occupation. The inspector deleted the condition: the verge is wide and raised, existing houses rely on it without recorded pedestrian injuries, and a long footway would be a disproportionate burden for one dwelling. He accepted that access might then not be suitable for all people. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶4). - **Policy.** TR3's rural limb is quoted correctly (opportunities to improve walking, wheeling and public transport should be taken where they exist and can be supported by the development). "Relevant to this appeal, policy ST10 is therefore consistent with the Framework." (DL ¶5). - **The route.** "There is no dispute that walking within the carriageway itself would not be safe, given the nature of the traffic and the width of the road." (DL ¶7). The verge "would not be suitable for some people, for example those who need to use a wheelchair" (DL ¶8), but is wide, flat and raised. - **Existing users.** "It is not uncommon in rural areas for sections of road serving houses to have no dedicated pavement." (DL ¶9). "The unchallenged evidence before me is that no pedestrian injury collisions have been recorded hereabouts in recent years, despite the reliance of these other properties on use of the verge." (DL ¶9). "Consequently, I am not persuaded that the footway is necessary." (DL ¶9). - **Proportionality (DM6).** "This would be disproportionate to the size of the proposal and therefore unreasonable, given the PPG advice." (DL ¶10). - **Equality.** "The removal of condition 10 may well result in access not being suitable for all people." (DL ¶13). Nonetheless, "I conclude that requiring provision of the footway would not be proportionate in the public interest" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance Condition tests (DM6, PPG): condition 10 neither necessary nor reasonable; deleted, and the plans condition reimposed without the footway drawing. ## What made the difference The scale (one dwelling), the wide raised verge with good forward visibility, and a clean collision record for existing verge users. The larger 10-dwelling Stibb Cross appeal was distinguished on scale and on the lack of a verge there. ## Transferable points - Caution for TR3 arguments: this letter accepts a verge-only route that is unsuitable for wheelchair users and relies on existing residents' use and a nil collision record (DL ¶8-9, ¶13). Contrast Hatton Station PINS-6006637 ¶23-26, which gives such evidence limited weight. - TR3(1)(e) improvements are required only where they "can be supported by the development proposed"; for a single dwelling a long footway failed the DM6 reasonableness test (DL ¶5, ¶10). - An earlier refusal on the same road for a larger scheme with no refuge verge is distinguishable (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **TR3(1)(e): pass.** rural opportunities to improve walking etc. to be taken where they can be supported by the development; a footway for one dwelling not necessary or proportionate (DL 5, 9-12) - **DM6: fail.** condition 10 not necessary or reasonable; disproportionate cost for one dwelling (PPG 21a-005) (DL 6, 9-10, 12) - **DM3: neutral.** proportionate approach to scale and impact (DL 6) - **TR3: pass.** ST10 consistent with TR3; verge unsuitable for wheelchair users and muddy in bad weather, but wide, flat, raised with good visibility; existing A388 houses rely on it with no pedestrian injury collisions (DL 5, 7-9) ## Key facts - Walking in the A388 carriageway agreed to be unsafe given heavy traffic, large vehicles and road width (DL 7) - The Council's approval relied partly on proximity to Stibb Cross facilities (DL 7) - Earlier appeal for up to 10 dwellings on another A388 limb (APP/W1145/W/20/3249942) found harm where there was little or no verge; distinguished (DL 11) - PSED considered; removal of the footway may leave access unsuitable for all people (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010706 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f4d5ec4f-02c5-4db8-b5bf-046ec5e5253e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010706.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.