First reported 14 Aug 2014•Latest report 5 Dec 2024
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes failures to provide or maintain a safe pedestrian route alongside a public road where the deficiency leaves pedestrians walking in the carriageway, on an unsafe verge or otherwise exposed to vehicle conflict; include missing footpaths and materially inadequate roadside pedestrian access routes.
Not included
Excludes pedestrian crossings, traffic signals, barriers and pedestrian-vehicle separation where the unsafe condition is not the absence or inadequacy of a roadside pedestrian route.
Excludes cycle-lane and shared-path width concerns where a suitable pedestrian route exists and the primary issue is cyclist separation or shared-use capacity.
Excludes lighting, vegetation, sight-distance and road-layout deficiencies unless they directly constitute the failure to provide a safe roadside pedestrian route.
Excludes generic road-safety or highway-maintenance concerns without a material deficiency in pedestrian route provision.
Reports
10
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
11
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2014–2024
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
14
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council2
Bournemouth Airport Limited1
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council1
Cheshire East Council1
Durham County Council1
Kent County Council1
Kerry Jane Regent & Partners1
Plymouth City Council1
Salford City Council1
Staffordshire County Council1
Staffordshire Police1
T.W. Busby & Son1
Walsall Borough Council1
English unitary authority6
English county council2
English metropolitan district council2
Airport operator1
Coach operator1
Company1
Police force1
Concerns and responses across reports
Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
Dorset
Concerns raised2
Lack of a stable safe public footpath along Hurn Court Lane
Lack of pedestrian pathway and crossing facility at Parley Lane Parking
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.9
Action
Support the airport in progressing construction of a footway into the airport.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Develop plans for a pedestrian footpath alongside the BOH-owned section of Hurn Court Lane.
Stated by Bournemouth AirportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Construct a pedestrian footpath alongside the BOH-owned section of Hurn Court Lane, subject to permitted development consultation.
Stated by Bournemouth AirportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Complete the review of the Parley Lane speed limit.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Consult on reducing the Parley Lane speed limit from 60 to 40 mph.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Implement the 40 mph Parley Lane speed limit by July 2025.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Assess the location for a vehicle-activated sign after the speed limit is reduced to 40 mph.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Re-check the operation of pedestrian crossing facilities at the Hurn Court Lane and Parley Lane junction.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Make representations to BCP about safety arrangements for Parley Lane, its junction and the Adventure Wonderland car park.
Stated by Bournemouth AirportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
Provision of a footway beyond the speed-limit signs is outside the council’s highway responsibility.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Private landowners are responsible for providing walking and cycling facilities on land beyond the council highway extent.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The airport cannot act on Parley Lane, its junction, or the Adventure Wonderland car park because it controls none of those areas.
Stated by Bournemouth AirportOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
BCP Council and the Highways Agency are responsible for Parley Lane, rather than the airport.
Stated by Bournemouth AirportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Devon, Plymouth and Torbay
Concerns raised1
Mature trees obstructing safe pedestrian and mobility-aid access along the pavement
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Remove specified trees beside the north-east carriageway and reconstruct approximately 450 metres of the carriageway and footway.
Stated by Plymouth City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 December 2024.
Black Country
Concerns raised1
Lack of a designated and separated pedestrian route to the flats
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Consider safely installing a designated pedestrian pathway while assessing required carriageway and footway widths and access implications.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 May 2024.
Action
Develop and assess an alternative pedestrian-safety scheme involving a diverted entrance, crossing, and footway, including highway-engineer review and landowner negotiations.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 May 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
The council cannot unilaterally designate part of the service road as a pedestrian pathway because all access-rights holders must consent.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
The service road is too narrow to provide both a sufficiently wide carriageway and a safe 1.5-metre footway.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
Marking a designated footway may not improve pedestrian safety and could increase risk by creating false reassurance while reversing vehicles remain hazardous.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The proposed alternative pedestrian scheme cannot be implemented without agreement from the neighbouring landowner and affected leaseholders.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Manchester West
Concerns raised1
Lack of a footpath on one side of Cadishead Way
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
Lack of a footpath alongside the A690
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Complete an independent road safety assessment covering street lighting and pedestrian-route provision along the A690.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 September 2020.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
The section of the A690 has no fundamental safety issues requiring further action.
Stated by Durham County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Existing parallel, street-lit, lower-speed pedestrian routes are considered sufficient, so lighting and footways will not be added to the A690.
Stated by Durham County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Street lighting and associated footway works are not proposed because lighting is cost-neutral and additional footway and fencing would increase scheme costs.
Stated by Durham County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Berkshire
Concerns raised1
Lack of a footpath alongside the A329 at the hotel entrance
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Low anticipated pedestrian use and the rural setting do not support providing a new north-side footway.
Stated by Royal Borough of Windsor and MaidenheadDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Berkshire
Concerns raised1
Lack of a footpath on the hotel side of the A329 requiring pedestrians to cross the road
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Low anticipated pedestrian use and the rural setting do not support providing a new north-side footway.
Stated by Royal Borough of Windsor and MaidenheadDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Central and South East Kent
Concerns raised1
Lack of a safe pedestrian route and crossing facility near the bus stop
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
A controlled pedestrian crossing is not considered appropriate because pedestrian crossing numbers and general footway use are minimal.
Stated by Kent County CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
Position
An uncontrolled crossing cannot be provided because there is no southern footway and insufficient verge width for an accessible facility.
Stated by Kent County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
A hard-standing pedestrian refuge cannot be provided because the available verge is too narrow for required accessible infrastructure.
Stated by Kent County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Cheshire
Concerns raised1
Obstruction of the footpath by a road-sign support
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Remove the road sign assembly and relocate it away from the footway.
Stated by Mike SuarezStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 February 2017.
Staffordshire South
Concerns raised1
Absence of a footpath
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures to provide or maintain a safe pedestrian route alongside a public road where the deficiency leaves pedestrians walking in the carriageway, on an unsafe verge or otherwise exposed to vehicle conflict; include missing footpaths and materially inadequate roadside pedestrian access routes.
