What decides a sustainable location: the factors in 247 decisions

What was counted #

We screened 309 decisions: every one in the decisions database with a finding on TR3 or on the policies that refer to it, a main issue about location or accessibility, or repeated wording about car dependence or access to services.

• 247 assess the location with at least one stated factor. These are the base for every count on this page.
• 15 only assert or concede the point, for example by listing a "sustainable location" among the benefits with no reasons.
• 47 turned out not to be about accessibility: for example "location" meant a town-centre sequential test, or TR3 was cited only for highway safety.

Of the 247, 108 found the location sustainable, 98 found it not sustainable, and 37 were mixed: shortcomings were found but tolerated, or the site passed one policy limb and failed another. 4 reached no finding. 232 applied the August 2026 Framework. 12 were decided after it took effect but used the wording of the December 2024 Framework, which TR3 carries forward, and 3 cite neither.

The 11 classes #

Decisions is the number of the 247 in which a factor of that class came into play. For, Against and Set aside count the factor findings: the decision-maker treated the factor as supporting a sustainable location, as counting against it, or raised it and then rejected it, gave it little or no weight, or left it neutral. Decisive is the number of decisions in which a factor of that class was one of the one to three that settled the location finding.

Every factor #

Each factor is counted once for a decision in which it came into play. The decisions named under a factor are examples in which it was decisive; the full register lists the factors in every decision.

Walking route quality #

Distance and proximity #

Services and facilities #

Bus and road public transport #

Rail #

Cycling #

Car reliance and softening arguments #

Scale and nature of the development #

Settlement hierarchy and plan position #

Evidence, tools and other parties #

Mitigation and improvements #

31 one-off points fit no factor, for example an adjacent park and ride, or linked trips in a district centre. They are in the register's "other" column and are not counted here.

What separates the findings #

The table shows, for each class, the share of decisions with each finding in which it came into play.

A walking-route factor appears in 84 of the 98 decisions that found the location not sustainable, and in 49 of the 108 that found it sustainable. A finding that the location is sustainable is more often built on the bus service (80 of 108) and on distance or proximity (73).

What the totals show #

• The walking route dominates. It has 508 findings, more than twice any other class, and 73% of them count against the location. It was decisive in 117 decisions; the next class, bus and road public transport, in 70.
• Footway and lighting lead. Whether there is a footway was a factor in 143 decisions and decisive in 98; street lighting in 122 and decisive in 63. Neither is measured by the Connectivity Tool.
• Distance cuts evenly (58 for, 56 against) and was decisive in 43 decisions, fewer than half as many as footway presence. A distance benchmark such as 800 metres was applied in 20.
• Buses are raised in more decisions than anything else (173) and count for the location more often than against it (116 to 85). The exception is evidence: where the decision-maker had no timetable or frequency evidence (12 decisions), 11 found the location not sustainable.
• Cycling and the settlement hierarchy are argued but rarely decide. Cycling was decisive in 5 of the 75 decisions that weighed it. A settlement's tier in the council's hierarchy came up in 80 and was decisive in 8; see Service Village Does Not Mean Sustainable.
• Scale and the nature of the scheme are the usual route to a mixed finding. They appear in 27 of the 37 mixed findings and count for the location 62 times against 13. The scale of the scheme itself (37 decisions) is less one-sided: 19 for, 9 against, 9 set aside.
• Electric vehicles and home working did not help. They were argued in 7 decisions and never counted for the location.
• Usability for everyone only ever counts against. Whether the route works for children, disabled people or older people, and in the dark or in winter, was a factor in 36 decisions and never counted for the location.
• Earlier decisions carry little. Comparator appeals and permissions were raised in 36 decisions and set aside in 24.
• The Connectivity Tool is cited in few decisions but matters when it is. A score was a factor in 27 decisions (12 for, 9 against) and among the decisive factors in 16.
• Mitigation is offered in few decisions and usually helps. New footways, crossings, bus contributions and the like came up in 30 decisions; 38 of the 51 findings counted for the location.

Method and limits #

Each decision's factors were coded from our case file for it, which is our note of the decision letter or council report, against a fixed codebook. Every coded factor was then checked against the text of the decision itself: the letter or report has to contain wording for that factor. The settlement-tier factor follows the separate, quote-checked register behind Service Village Does Not Mean Sustainable. The register, with one row per decision, is in the research repository.

• The counts are floors. A factor our note left out is not counted, so a factor may have been used in more decisions than shown.
• The text check is a check of presence. It shows the decision mentions the factor. It does not prove which way the factor cut.
• The split between for, against and set aside is approximate at the margin. A shortcoming that was found and then tolerated can fairly be read as against or as set aside. The number of decisions in which a factor came into play is the firmer figure.
• "Decisive" is our reading of what settled the location finding, not a quotation from the decision.
• Two factors are probably undercounted: narrow or single-track lanes, and the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) used in London. Both were added after the first pass.
• The location finding is not the outcome. A scheme in a location found sustainable can still be refused on other grounds, and the reverse.

The register #