Sutton Council: “We never assessed impact of K-frame barrier on disabled cyclists”

Sutton Borough Council has admitted that it ignored its own cycling and transport strategies, the Equality Act, and cycling design standards when it installed a K-frame barrier on a national cycle route.

In March 2018, Sutton Council installed a K-frame anti-moped barrier on National Cycle Route 20 at Watermeads Way on the River Wandle.  The barrier effectively bars anyone using a non-standard bicycle with a wide handlebar or frame, unless they are fit enough to dismount and manhandle the bike through the barrier.  This is not true for some mobility-impaired people who use non-standard bikes as mobility aids.  It also hinders e.g. parents using cargo-bikes to transport young children.

I wrote a separate post back in March with pictures, maps, references to the cycling design standards and immediate reactions from various stakeholders.  The standards explicitly state that K-frame and similar barriers should not be installed on cycle routes due to the impact they have on anyone using non-standard bicycles.

In March, I submitted a Freedom of Information Request to Sutton Council asking how it had satisfied the requirements of the Equality Act and complied with cycling design standards.   After a reminder from the Information Commissioners Office that it should reply to the request, Sutton Council belatedly provided some answers.

 

Question 1. Please provide the council’s policy on enabling active travel by disabled people. Please highlight the council’s duties regarding disabled peoples’ access to the cycle paths under its management.

Sutton Council:

• Objective 5 of Sutton’s Cycle Strategy extract – Ensure the borough’s cycle network is accessible to all types of bikes and cyclists, including those with disabilities and users of mobility scooters, and is designed to avoid conflict with those with visual or physical impairments.
• Objective 3 of Sustainable Transport Strategy extract. Wherever possible, cycle routes segregated from motor traffic will be implemented, either alongside roads or through parks and open spaces. In parks, use will be made of existing paths, with the preference being for segregated paths where flows of pedestrians and cyclists are high, or shared paths where flows are low. On-road provision for cyclists will also be made where appropriate. All major highway and traffic schemes will have a cycle audit to ensure that they make good quality provision for cycling. Cycle facilities should be designed to be accessible to all types of bicycle including those used by disabled cyclists.

Comment: Two good objectives in the council’s cycling and transport strategies, both recognising that the borough’s cycle routes should be suitable for “all types of bikes and cyclists … including  disabled cyclists”.   Alas …

 

Question 2. Please provide an assessment by e.g. council’s equality officer, regarding the installation of this barrier and whether the council has complied with its duties under the Equality Act 2010 regarding the ability of disabled people, and those with impaired mobility, to travel along and cycle safely on the Wandle Trail.

Sutton Council:

• The barrier was requested in response to safety concerns from local residents, and anti-social behaviour being experienced with motorcycles and scooters using the footpath.
• A site meeting was held with the local councillor, Localities Lead Officer, Highways and Neighbourhood Services to consider solutions.
• An equality assessment was not carried out as part of this but the council were mindful when installing the barrier of the need to maintain access for different users. The barrier installed is designed in such a way as to accommodate double width buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists. The width of the barrier at the top can be adjusted to accommodate these groups whilst still inhibiting mopeds.

Comment:

• Sutton Council did not undertake an equality assessment prior to installing the barrier, and has not prepared an assessment since.
• “using the footpath” … no, it’s a shared-use path designated as a National Cycle Route.
• The comment that “the barrier at the top can be adjusted” is misleading. It cannot be adjusted by a passing user.  The council asked the installers to return at the end of March 2018 to widen the K-frame barrier by 5cm to its maximum width of 66cm.  The barrier cannot be widened any further, short of dismantling it entirely.
• Flat handlebars, used on upright bicycles (hybrid, mountain, tricycles, cargos etc.) typically are 70 to 80cm. Therefore, everyone riding such bikes need to stop, twist the bars and manhandle their bike through the barrier. The council assumes anyone using a non-standard bicycle such as a tricycle can lift and shift a bike weighing upwards of 25kg.
• Obviously, there is no way that a side-by-side tri or quad-cycle will get through this barrier.
• So, the two objectives in the borough’s cycling and transport strategies, that the borough’s cycle routes should be suitable for “all types of bikes and cyclists … including disabled cyclists”, have been failed.

 

Question 3. Please list the design guidance used by council officers to build and maintain the borough’s cycle network, such as Tfl’s London Cycle Design Standards, Highways England IAN195 etc.

Sutton Council: TfL London Cycle Design Standards. On this National Cycle Network route we also considered Sustrans guidance and Wandle Valley Regional Park guidance. The path was part of a Big Green Fund project in 2013 of which one of the outcomes was more accessibility for all.

Comment:

• As noted in the March blogpost, Chapter 4 of the London Cycling Design Guide (LCDS) is explicit that K-frame barrier should not be used on cycle routes “except as a last resort … after applying other measures”. Similarly, the Sustrans guidance is explicit too, and also notes the Equality Act issues.  Sutton Council has ignored the design guidance.
• In March 2015, Councillor Neil Garratt (who represented Beddington South ward for the Conservatives until May 2018) asked for the borough’s Cycling Strategy to comply with the London Cycling Design Standards. The chair of the Environment & Neighbourhood Committee, Jill Whitehead, made that commitment.  That commitment has been broken.
• If a desired outcome of the Big Green Fund Project in 2013 was “more accessibility”, then installing this barrier is a backward step.

 

Question 4. Please explain how the installation of this barrier complies with that design guidance.

Sutton Council: An assessment of the installation against the listed guides was not undertaken as part of the process.

Comment: No shit, Sherlock.

 

Question 5. Please list the other measures implemented by the council to prevent access to the Wandle Trail from Watermead Lane by people riding moped and motorcycles, and the dates when those measures were tested.  In other words, please demonstrate that the installation of a K-frame barrier is the “last resort” required under TfL’s LCDS Chapter 4.

Sutton Council:

• Prior to 2013 there was a kissing gate in place that did restrict the use of the path. The National Cycle Network was on a different route, via Peterborough Road.

Comment: The council, with the help of local police, did not attempt any other measures to control users of mopeds and motorcycles.  The council has failed to maintain the cycle route against LCDS Chapter 4, despite its commitment to do so.

 

Question 6. Please provide any correspondence with the charity managing the national cycle network, Sustrans, regarding this barrier prior to its installation.

Sutton Council:

• The barrier was requested in response to safety concerns from local residents, and anti-social behaviour being experienced with motorcycles and scooters using the footpath.
• A site meeting was held with the local councillor, Localities Lead Officer, Highways and Neighbourhood Services to consider solutions. Sustrans were not included in this, and the council did not engage with them prior to its installation, but have continued to since given the concerns raised about access.

Comment:

• The answer is interesting as it indicates this was cross-departmental decision involving a local councillor, and the Neighbourhood Services and Highways teams.  This cross-departmental team went to the site, looked at signs for the National Cycle Route 20 and the shared-use walking & cycling path, and decided to install a barrier.
• The local councillor is unnamed. Prior to the May 2018 local elections, the councillors were Hanna Zuchowska, Jason Reynolds and Margaret Court.  (Ms Court stood down at the election, and Mr Reynolds was not elected when he stood as a candidate in a different ward.)  In May, Ms Zuchowska, Ben Andrew and Vincent Galligan were elected as ward councillors, all from the Liberal Democrat Party which controls Sutton Council.   Ms Zuchowska is a member of the council’s Equality and Diversity Forum (as she was before the election).  Ms Zuchowska and her fellow ward councillors have declined to offer any comment on their decision to install this barrier.
• The Highways team is a joint venture with Kingston Borough Council. Alongside Waltham Forest and Enfield, Kingston is one of three London boroughs implementing mini-holland cycling programmes.  If you thought a highways team involved in Kingston’s Go-Cycle programme would be cognisant of cycling design standards, then you’re wrong.
• The London Sustrans team confirmed separately to me that they were not informed nor consulted before the barrier was installed on National Cycle Route 20. I will leave the Sustrans staff to state their own views separately but I am aware they are not happy and are talking to Sutton Council.

 

Question 7. Please provide any correspondence between the council and cycling and disability advocacy groups, such as the Sutton group of the London Cycling Campaign, and the Wheels for Wellbeing organisation, regarding this barrier prior to its installation.

Sutton Council:

• An assessment has not been carried out. When installing the barrier we were mindful of the need to maintain access for different users. The barrier installed has therefore been designed to accommodate double width buggies, mobility scooters and cyclists. The width of the barrier at the top can be adjusted to accommodate these groups whilst still inhibiting mopeds.

Comment:  See previous comments.  Sutton Council, led by a local councillor and council officers installed a K-frame barrier on a national cycle route and failed to engage with any cycling or disability-related stakeholder prior to its installation.

Alongside Sustrans, I am aware the Sutton branch of the London Cycling Campaign and the disability-cycling advocates Wheels-for-Wellbeing have expressed their displeasure to Sutton Council.

 

Question 8. Please cite the source of the budget used to plan, acquire and install this barrier.  Was it funded using Local Implementation Plan funds from Transport for London and, if so, from which line item?

Sutton Council:

• The barrier was funded through the Public Realm capital, under delegated authority, through the St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley Local Committee, on 1st November 2017. Record of the decision is here.

Comment: The decision to purchase and install the barrier was in two steps.  The Wandle Valley ward committee (made up of Cllr Zuchowska and her fellow councillors) made the decision, and the purchasing decision valued at £2,684 was signed off by a council officer in the Neighbourhood team.

 

Conclusion
The answers to the FOI request confirmed what I suspected: the council’s councillors and officers are aware of its strategies, relevant standards and Equality Act duties, and was happy to ignore them.

I recognise the problems caused by people riding mopeds and motorcycles on cycle paths, footpaths and, in this case, river side paths.  But as a society we don’t fix these issues by penalising the innocent and vulnerable and hindering their ability to enjoy safe, segregated transport options.

Councils of every political colour make clumsy decisions. But the Liberal Democrats claim that they are different to Conservatives and Labour, and are better advocates for both active-travel and disability issues.

The saga of this K-frame barrier shows that Sutton Liberal Democrats’ claims to care are worthless.

 

 

Updated 27 June to note that former Wandle Ward councillor Jason Reynolds did not stand down at the May 2018 election. He sought election in the nearby Carshalton South Ward but was not elected.

London’s Sutton Council bars disabled cyclists from NCN20, Wandle Trail

The London Borough of Sutton has installed an anti-moped K-frame barrier on the Wandle Trail, part of National Cycle Route 20.  As a consequence, many disabled cyclists are now barred from cycling on this quiet, off-road route between Merton and Carshalton.

The K-Barrier has been installed at Watermeads Lane (Google map link), restricting access to the trail along the River Wandle beside Poulter Park.

To maximise the inconvenience, the barrier has been positioned beside a small bridge over a drainage ditch.  There are 60cm between the upper plates of the frame, and 90cm between the lower uprights.  This is narrower than the 1.2m defined in Highways England’s design guidelines (IAN 195) for non-standard bicycles used by many disabled people.  The barrier is a problem for people using cargo-bikes, often used for taking smaller children to school.  People using wheelchairs and mobility scooters will find that the barrier is a very tight squeeze too, and likely to prevent them accessing the trail.

No signs have been erected elsewhere along the trail to warn people that their access to the trail to or from Watermead Lane may be impeded.

The barrier can only have been installed following a decision process which blatantly ignored all cycling and design guidelines, and the requirements of Equality Act 2010.

The barrier was installed in early March 2018 at a cost of £2,684.  The local councillors supported the installation in an attempt to hinder people riding mopeds along the riverside path.  This is confirmed in the minutes of the council’s public realm report provided to 8 March 2018 meeting of the council’s Wandle Valley Local Committee:

The ward has three councillors, all from the Liberal Democrat party which controls Sutton Council.

• Hanna Zuchowska, (Twitter, Facebook) chairs the Wandle Valley Local Committee, and also sits on the council’s Equality and Diversity Committee. You might expect that Ms Zuchowska might have considered the Equality Act implications of putting barriers on a cycle path;
• Jason Reynolds, sits on the council’s Environment and Neighbourhood Committee which reviews transport issues in the borough. You might expect Mr Reynolds to have considered the transport implications for people with impaired mobility; and
• Margaret Court, sits on the Adult Social Services and Health Committee. Again, you might expect Ms Court to reflect on the implications of hindering transport options for people with impaired mobility.

Like all councils across London, there will be local elections in Sutton in May 2018.

There is extensive guidance stating that K Barriers are not to be used on cycle routes because they deny access to non-standard bicycles.  Non-standard bicycles, such as tricycles and recumbents, are often used by people with mobility issues.  Parents will often use cargo-bikes for carrying smaller children.

Highways England explicitly instruct highways engineers not to use K-frame barriers on cycle routes “because they cannot be negotiated by the cycle design vehicle” (ref IAN 195 Cycle Traffic and the Strategic Road Network).

Transport for London’s London Cycling Design Standards are explicit on the use of A and K-frame barriers as a last resort after all other measures have been tried.  The extract below is from LCDS Chapter 4, section 4.5.15 Access Controls and refers to obligations under the Equality Act 2010:

The Wandle Trail is part of National Cycle Route 20, a network of cycle routes managed by the walking & cycle charity Sustrans.  Sustrans has its own engineering consultancy, and its own design guidance (‘Controlling Access on Paths’, 2012) states clearly that K frame barriers are inappropriate for cycle routes.

The same Sustrans guidance explains the consequences of the Equality Act 2010.  I believe that Sutton Council has failed in its duties under the Equality Act by removing the access that people with impaired mobility have enjoyed to date.

The Wheels for Wellbeing organisation, which campaigns for cyclists with impaired mobility, has published an excellent guide to what inclusive design for cycling entails.  Alongside Highways England and Sustrans, WfW also recommends against K-frame barriers due to the problems they cause.

I understand the wish to prevent people riding mopeds and motorcycles on paths like the Wandle Trail.  But installing barriers which stop people with a legitimate and legal reason to access and enjoy the trail just swaps one problem for another.

This barrier discriminates against people with impaired mobility, and all who use non-standard bicycles.  This barrier must be removed.

Update 09:00, 15 March 2018

Several interested groups have replied to say they were not informed before Sutton Council planned, purchased and installed this barrier.

1. The Sutton group of the London Cycling Campaign wasn’t consulted, and will use its channels with the council to complain;
2. Wheels for Wellbeing organisation confirmed the barrier discriminates against many disabled cyclists; .
3. The Wandle Valley Park Trust wasn’t consulted, and isn’t impressed; 
4. The managers of the national cycle network, Sustrans, confirmed they received no warning either, and have contacted the council to seek explanation.

I have received no response from any of the three local councillors who approved this decision.  The three councillors are from the controlling Liberal Democrat Party.

The Labour Party candidates for the Wandle Ward have said they will seek to remove the barrier if elected.

The deputy leader of the opposition Conservatives, Neil Garratt, has responded to say he’s asked the council’s Chief Executive to explain non-compliance with the London Cycling Design Standards, and the Equality Act implications.

Update at 1800, 15 March

Sutton Council provided a response via its Twitter feed in three parts:

1/3 Response to @lastnotlost @WandleForum and others: The barrier has been installed in response to illegal mopeds accessing the site which pose a safety risk and damage property. Police were notified of the decision to install the barriers and supported this measure. (Twitter, 15 March, 16:03)

2/3 The barrier is adjustable so can be widened to accommodate cyclists, mobility scooters and double width buggies while still preventing incursions by mopeds. Alternative access is available and fully accessible via Peterborough Road, Poulter Park footpath and (Twitter, 15 March, 16:03) …

3/3. . .the new ramp or steps leading back down onto the riverside path. If users have any specific concerns about the width of the barrier we are very happy to look at this. Please email localcommittees@sutton.gov.uk (Twitter, 15 March, 16:04)

Some comments on the council’s response:

1. The K-frame barrier is *not* adjustable, contrary to the second tweet/ paragraph. The only way the barrier can be adjusted in width is to unbolt and remove the upper plates using a socket set. This would increase the accessible width by approx. 18cm.  That obviously is not feasible unless transit through this barrier is planned in advance and council staff are available to assist;
2. Assuming you are cycling southbound and already on the riverside, the council suggests there is an alternative route using the nearby ramp and steps (picture to follow soon) from the riverside up to the main level of Poulter Park. These paths take you back out to broadly where you accessed the path to begin with;
3. Sutton Council’s byelaws – applicable in Poulter Park – prohibit cycling except on designated routes:Para 17. No person shall without reasonable excuse ride a cycle in the ground except in any part of the ground where there is right of way for cycles or on a designated route for cycling.Common sense would suggest that a disabled person would have a ‘reasonable excuse’ to ride a bicycle on a park footpath.  But would the council’s officers be sympathetic to others using non-standard bicycles such as parents using cargo-bikes to carry small children?
4. The fully-accessible alternative cycle route is away from the river and outside Poulter Park entirely: you stay on Bishopsford Road, Peterborough Road and Middleton Road. All three have 30mph speed limits.  This route is signposted as part of the legacy London Cycle Network as LCN24, and the cycling infrastructure is a few bicycles painted on the carriageway.  The dropped-kerb at the north-west end of Peterborough Road (giving access to the path to/from Bishopsford Road) is usually blocked by parked cars.

Sutton Council appears to be arguing that it achieves its Equality Act duties by providing an alternative, fully-accessible route via Peterborough Road.  But the council has not installed any signs before or along the Wandle Trail to inform people using disabled or non-standard bicycles that they are effectively barred from the riverside and should seek an alternative route.

Sutton Counci’s message to people who can’t ride a standard bicycle: find an alternative route to National Cycle Route 20, Wandle Trail.  You don’t get to enjoy nice things.

Update 1800, 16 March

• Sutton Council clarified its advice from 15 March to confirm that the barrier can only be adjusted by the installers, not by passing members of the public.
• The Conservative councillor, Neil Garratt, received feedback from the council’s Chief Executive that it accepts that the barrier does cause access issues. The council has asked the installers to return and adjust the barrier, possibly to add another 5cm between the stainless steel plates.  Neil Garratt has asked that any decision on the width of the barrier must be after consultation with local cycling groups.  The council’s next cycling forum is scheduled for 10 April.
• Charles Martin, who leads the Sutton group of the London Cycling Campaign, posted a thread of tweets listing the issues with the barrier and nearby alternative cycling infrastructure. In summary: either the barrier is removed and the River Wandle continues to be a cycle route, or the barrier remains and the cycle route designation is removed;
• This sentiment was picked up the several involved in Sustrans, which is the charity which manages the national cycle network. For several years, Sustrans has been working with land owners to remove A and K-frame barriers.   Looks like Sustrans is gearing up for a proper review of the south’s cycle routes, with a key requirement being accessibility in line with Highways England’s IAN195 standard.
• Via Twitter, Adam Reynolds shared Oxfordshire County Council’s new cycling design standards, which draws on London’s and Highways England’s.

Adding 5cm extra between the plates on the barrier might help a few, but the fundamental problem with the barrier remains: it prevents a significant number of people who use non-standard bicycles from accessing the cycle route along the river.

The Sustrans’ audit using standards such as Highways England IAN195 is interesting. The neighbouring boroughs on the River Wandle, Wandsworth and Merton are each using are using Local Implementation Plan (LIP) funds from Transport for London (TfL) to improve the NCN20 route to a more inclusive Quietway standard.  This has involved resurfacing the paths, adding discrete, low-lux lighting to many sections, and removing bollards and barriers to achieve the accessibility levels required by the London Cycling Design Standard (LCDS) and IAN195.

It would be very embarrassing for Sutton Council, under any political party’s administration, to lose its National Cycle Network rating on a key cycle path because it failed accessibility requirements.

Sutton’s K-frame barrier fails those requirements.  The barrier must be removed.

 

Update 1800, 28 March

The local newspaper, Sutton Guardian, has picked up the story and and added it to this week’s printed edition and its website “Wandle Trail: Concerns raised after installation of nearly £2,700 barrier“.

Charles Martin, co-ordinator for the Sutton branch of the London Cycling Campaign, reports that the barrier will be widened by 50mm (2 inches) by contractors before the Easter weekend.

Update, 26 June 2018

I asked Sutton Council via a Freedom of Information request for more information about the process by which the barrier was selected, authorised and installed. This is written up in a second blogpost.

(Updated 13/03/18 to include reference to TfL’s London Cycling Design Standards. Updated 15/03/18 to include feedback from local advocacy groups, and from Sutton Council.
Updated 16/03/18 to include feedback from Cllr Garratt, and links to Sustrans ongoing audit of the national cycle network.
Updated 28/03/18 to include link to Sutton Guardian newspaper’s report.
Updated 26/06/18 to link to a new post following an FOI request).