hang on, which part of my quote did you actually correct?
My point is, the distance from one side to the other side of the road is reduced, not the actual footpath. Pedestrians are not losing any footpath from what the plans show.

A narrower road is not necessarily a more dangerous road, but hopefully a slow flowing road, taking into account some idiots will never slow down.

Im not sure what makes you feel a wider road is safer. Wider passage, more speed can be carried, more temptation for over taking, mor temptation for people to park at the sides to collect people from the station, and more time per pedestrian potentially spent in the road and higher chance of being struck by a passing car.

With regards to people spilling into the road.... the pavement being narrow is a factor, I agree, but if there were a sheer drop off the kerb, and not a piece of tarmac impatient pedestrians could lay claim to whenever they could no be bothered to comply and stay on the pavement, things would be rather different. I dont think we would see many people deviating from the pavement.

Narrowing the distance of a crossing has long been considered a safe practise, Sydenham's crossings are a good example of this.

The comment about the council selling off land, do I understand from this that the properties being built will indeed reside upon what was previously a footpath? Again, I have not seen the actual before and after plans so am not in a position to comment on that.