Dear City of York Council,

I write to you in relation to the barriers that are present in a number of locations on the entrances to Hob Moor. For the purposes of this request you may consider the barrier at the approximate location (53.947091, -1.108217) to be the focus, but I believe there are 4 further barriers of similar design at other entrances to Hob Moor and this request could apply equally to all of them.

This FOI request is specific to the design of these barriers, as they compose of a baffled set of uprights, a baseplate of – from what I have been able to determine – unique design and a bypass gate operated by a radar lock approximately 75cm off the ground.

The Equality Act 2010, Section 20 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201...) contains a number of stipulations with regards to provisions, practices, criterion and physical features. These are legal obligations, and as such, are not optional. The Equality Act 2010, Section 20 is henceforth referred to as and by "S.20".

I write to ask the following questions;
1) When was this barrier installed?
2) Was an Equality Impact Assessment carried out at this location, as required by the Equality Act 2010 S.149, prior to the installation of this barrier;
3) Could you please provide a copy of that Equality Impact Assessment;
4) Why was a baffled upright deemed to be necessary here when this design is not used elsewhere in York for barriers that appear to perform the same function (e.g. approximate location (53.946117, -1.066161))?
5) Why was baseplate deemed to be necessary here when this design is not used elsewhere in York for barriers that appear to perform the same function (e.g. approximate location (53.946117, -1.066161))?
6) Who designed this barrier, including the baffles and baseplate?
6a) If this was acquired from a standard manufacturer could you please indicate from whom.
or
6b) If this was a custom design please provide design statements and a disability impact assessment of the design.
7) Who installed this barrier?
8) Who approved this barrier?

I note that this route forms part of the signposted and mapped orbital cycle network in York;

9) Who does this cycle route fall under the remit of?
10a) Were they consulted prior to installation?
10b) If so, what was their response?
10b.i) If they did not approve, why was this ignored/overruled/disregarded, and by whom?
10b.ii) If they did approve, please provide evidence to support this.

As this forms part of the signposted and advertised local cycle network, it is not unreasonable to expect cyclists, including disabled and adaptive cyclists, to wish to pass along here, as they are legally entitled to do.
It is further not unreasonable to assume that cyclists, including disabled and adaptive cyclists should wish to access and enjoy the amenity value of the ancient common land of Hobmoor.
It is also reasonable to assume that many cyclists passing through here may not be familiar with the immediate local area, and may struggle to find an alternative route;
It is further reasonable to assume that this route will see a higher proportion of less experienced and less-able cyclists, who are less likely to be able to achieve or maintain higher paces, and, accordingly, should not be forced onto main roads and away from quieter routes like this.
It is presumptive to expect a less-able cyclist to carry a radar key with them at all times.
It is presumptive to expect a less-able cyclist to be able to operate a locked gate which may or may not be self-closing whilst remaining mounted on an adaptive cycle.

I remind you that dismounting is not an option for the majority of users of adaptive cycles, such as handcycles, trikes and so on, and requiring a dismount for users of such 'cycles is a contravention of EA2010 S.20(3)(4), and constitutes an act of direct discrimination under Equality Act 2010, Section 21.

11) What provision has been made for the access of disabled cyclists to this ancient public land, with regards to the barriers?
12) What allowances and accommodations have been made for disabled cyclists?
13) Leading on from 12), what provision has been made for cargobikes, tricyclists, and adaptive cycles in general?
14) How would a cargobike pass through here? (Assume length of 2.15, width 89cm)
15) How would a recumbent handcycle pass through here? (Assume 2.2m length, 5.5m turning radius - not an extreme example, fairly typical).
16) How would an upright handcycle pass through here? (Assume 1.8m length, 5.5m turning radius - again, not extreme, fairly typical)
17) How would a wheelchair with a clip-on handcycle pass through here? (assume length of 1.6m, width of 72cm at the bottom, 74cm at the cranks - Again, not extreme, fairly typical)

The UK Government has recently embarked on a programme of encouraging the construction, provision and improvement of cycling infrastructure.

18) Please explain how this barrier, and the de facto banning of disabled cyclists from this route and space, aligns with this programme.

As above, and reiterated here verbatim for clarity and ease of reference; The Equality Act 2010, Section 20 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201...) contains a number of stipulations with regards to provisions, practices, criterion and physical features. These are legal obligations, and as such, are not optional. The Equality Act 2010, Section 20 is henceforth referred to as and by "S.20".

19) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with S.20(3);
20) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with S.20(4);
21) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with S.20(7);
22) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with S.20(9);
23) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with S.20(10);

I again remind you that expecting disabled cyclists to dismount is a violation of S.20(3). I also remind you that expecting disabled cyclists to go a long way out of their way to avoid this barrier is a violation of S.20(3),(4).

Finally, I expect immediate and urgent action to be taken in order to bring this barrier into compliance with the above legislation;

24) Please explain what immediate steps will be taken to restore inclusive and disabled accessibility for the above route.
25) Please provide the correct contact point for any further actions, including for any potential Letter(s) Before Action(s) to be addressed to.

Please provide the requested information in either table, or bullet pointed format, addressing each question raised fully in turn.

Please do not use "Refer to previous answer N", as none of my questions are likely to be satisfactorily answered by a prior question, and this will only result in additional FOI requests.

If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under the Section 16 obligations of the Act, as to how I can refine my request.

If you can identify any ways that my request could be refined, I would be grateful for any further advice and assistance.

If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me via email, and I will be very happy to clarify what I am asking for and to discuss this request; my details are outlined below.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Jamie Wood

foi@york.gov.uk, City of York Council

Thank you for your email. Please note this is an automatically generated receipt to let you know we have received your email.

As we are all facing unprecedented challenges during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please be aware that we may take longer to respond to your request.

For information:
* The timescale for responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Environmental Information Regulation (EIR) requests is up to 20 working days. We will contact you promptly if we need you to clarify your request or an extension to complete a public interest test.

* The timescale for responding to requests for a review, for FOIA or EIR responses, is up to 20 working days. You are also able to contact the Information Commissioner, contact details below:

* The timescale for responding to your rights in relation to personal data eg: subject access to records (SAR) request, is up to 1 month. We will contact you promptly if we require further information from you, or an extension.

* The timescale for responding to requests for a review, of responses to your rights regarding personal data, is up to 1 month. You are also able to contact the Information Commissioner, contact details below:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 (local rate) or 01625 545 745 if you prefer to use a national rate number
Fax: 01625 524 510
Or email: [email address]<mailto:[email address]> (please include your telephone number in your email)

Regards
Information governance, complaints and feedback team

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Help protect the environment! - please don't print this email unless you really need to.

show quoted sections

Clarke, Tony(Transport Planning), City of York Council

 

Please find below a response to your recent Freedom of Information
request.

1) When was this barrier installed? Mar / Apr 2007
2) Was an Equality Impact Assessment The barriers pre-date the Equality
carried out at this location, as Act and thus no Equality Impact
required by the Equality Act 2010 Assessment was undertaken
S.149, prior to the installation of
this barrier;  
3) Could you please provide a copy of See previous answer
that Equality Impact Assessment
4) Why was a baffled upright deemed to There was a need to exclude
be necessary here when this design is motorcycle access to eliminate the
not used elsewhere in York for barriers behaviour of the riders once they
that appear to perform the same had gained access. Those riders
function (e.g. approximate location have in the past caused
(53.946117, -1.066161))? significant damage to the historic
open space or stress to grazing
cattle.  Prior to installation
there were 55 instances of
anti-social behaviour reported to
the police in a six-month period
5) Why was baseplate deemed to be The “baffled upright” (the
necessary here when this design is not K-Barrier) alone would not have
used elsewhere in York for barriers succeeded in excluding motorcycle
that appear to perform the same access.  This was proven during
function (e.g. approximate location trials of designs.  As a result
(53.946117, -1.066161))? the baseplate (the Will-Jam
Barrier) was designed, trialled
and added.  The barrier at the
barracks end of the Walmgate Stray
path has historically not suffered
to the same extent from abuse by
motorcycle/moped riders as a
result of the motorcyclists having
to pass through the barracks site
with its’ heightened security
measures.
6) Who designed this barrier, including The K-Barrier (baffles) was
the baffles and baseplate?  designed by Keith Barraclough of
K-Barriers, and the base plate was
designed by the council’s in house
engineering team. 
6a) If this was acquired from a The K-Barrier and Will-Jam Barrier
standard manufacturer could you please were produced by K-Barriers of
indicate from whom. Sheffield
6b) If this was a custom design please N/A
provide design statements and a
disability impact assessment of the
design.
7) Who installed this barrier? City of York Council Community and
Neighbourhood Services workforce
8) Who approved this barrier? City of York Council Planning and
Transport (West Area)
Sub-Committee
9) Who does this cycle route fall under The route falls under the remit of
the remit of? various officers in the Transport
team
10a) Were they consulted prior to The barriers pre-date the
installation?  establishment of the Orbital Cycle
Route
10b) If so, what was their response? Not applicable
10b.i) If they did not approve, why was Not applicable
this ignored/overruled/disregarded, and
by whom
10b.ii) If they did approve, please Not applicable
provide evidence to support this.
11) What provision has been made for Radar-lock gates
the access of disabled cyclists to this
ancient public land, with regards to
the barriers?
12) What allowances and accommodations Radar-lock gates
have been made for disabled cyclists?
13) Leading on from 12), what provision Users can get a radar key from the
has been made for cargobikes, council which is free to people
tricyclists, and adaptive cycles in with a disability and requires a
general?  £15 refundable deposit for those
who don’t have a disability
14) How would a cargobike pass through If it can’t fit through the
here? (Assume length of 2.15, width modified K-barrier then it would
89cm) need to use the radar-lock gate
15) How would a recumbent handcycle If it can’t fit through the
pass through here? (Assume 2.2m length, modified K-barrier then it would
5.5m turning radius - not an extreme need to use the radar-lock gate
example, fairly typical). 
16) How would an upright handcycle pass If it can’t fit through the
through here? (Assume 1.8m length, 5.5m modified K-barrier then it would
turning radius - again, not extreme, need to use the radar-lock gate
fairly typical)
17) How would a wheelchair with a If it can’t fit through the
clip-on handcycle pass through here? modified K-barrier then it would
(assume length of 1.6m, width of 72cm need to use the radar-lock gate
at the bottom, 74cm at the cranks -
Again, not extreme, fairly typical)
18) Please explain how this barrier, There are many pieces of
and the de facto banning of disabled infrastructure around the York
cyclists from this route and space, area which don’t comply with the
aligns with this programme.  new LTN1/20 guidance.  This was
only published in July 2020 and as
such we haven’t realistically had
the time or resources to bring the
infrastructure up to the standard
suggested in the guidance.  Please
note LTN1/20 is non-statutory
guidance and in York we will
potentially not be able to comply
with it for all infrastructure as
a result of the historic road
network and lack of available
space.
19) Please clarify how the installation When designing the original
of these barriers aligns with S.20(3); barrier layout the needs of
various user groups including
people with disabilities or
non-standard cycle were taken into
consideration whilst still
complying with the planning
conditions for the construction of
the cycle route.
20) Please clarify how the installation Adjustments were made at the time
of these barriers aligns with S.20(4); of installation to accommodate
users with disabilities who
weren’t able to negotiate the
cycle bypass or kissing gate
through the provision of a Radar
lock gate, prior to this the
majority of disabled people or
users of non-standard cycles had
no access to Hob Moor.
21) Please clarify how the installation The council have not required
of these barriers aligns with S.20(7); disabled people to contribute
towards the cost of making
adjustments.  Radar keys are made
available free of charge to
disabled users.
22) Please clarify how the installation S.20(9) appears to be a list of
of these barriers aligns with S.20(9); types of reasonable adjustment
which are available and is not in
itself an actual policy.
23) Please clarify how the installation S.20(10) is a list of types of
of these barriers aligns with S.20(10); physical feature which the Act
applies to and isn’t a policy in
itself. 
24) Please explain what immediate steps Adjustments to the barrier design
will be taken to restore inclusive and which comply with the planning
disabled accessibility for the above conditions for the path whilst
route. accommodating different user types
are being investigated and ward
members are in discussions with
local groups to find a solution. 
An internal bid has been submitted
for funding to assess the use and
design of barriers across the city
with a view to removing, relaxing
or redesigning barriers where
appropriate in line with S.20(9).
25) Please provide the correct contact Please address all correspondence
point for any further actions, in the first instance to :
including for any potential Letter(s) [1][email address]
Before Action(s) to be addressed to.
   

 

If you are dissatisfied with our response you have the right to ask for a
review of how your enquiry was handled and responded to. This can be done
by contacting us through [2][City of York Council request email] stating your reason(s) why you
are dissatisfied. If you remain dissatisfied after receiving the review
response you

can contact the Information Commissioner, contact details below:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Tel: 0303 123 1113 (local rate) or 01625 545 745 if you prefer to use a
national rate number

Fax: 01625 524 510
Or email: [3][email address] (please include your telephone number)

Regards

 

Tony Clarke | Head of Transport  

t: 01904 551641 | e: [4][email address]

 

City of York Council | Directorate of Economy and Place

West Offices | Station Rise | York | YO1 6GA

[5]www.york.gov.uk | [6]facebook.com/cityofyork | [7]@CityofYork

 

 

 

the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear York City Council,

 

I write to you in relation to the barriers that are present in a number of
locations on the entrances to Hob Moor. For the purposes of this request
you may consider the barrier at the approximate location (53.947091,
-1.108217) to be the focus, but I believe there are 4 further barriers of
similar design at other entrances to Hob Moor and this request could apply
equally to all of them.

 

This FOI request is specific to the design of these barriers, as they
compose of a baffled set of uprights, a baseplate of – from what I have
been able to determine – unique design and a bypass gate operated by a
radar lock approximately 75cm off the ground.

 

The Equality Act 2010, Section 20
([8]https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201...) contains a
number of stipulations with regards to provisions, practices, criterion
and physical features. These are legal obligations, and as such, are not
optional. The Equality Act 2010, Section 20 is henceforth referred to as
and by "S.20".

 

I write to ask the following questions;

1) When was this barrier installed?

2) Was an Equality Impact Assessment carried out at this location, as
required by the Equality Act 2010 S.149, prior to the installation of this
barrier;

3) Could you please provide a copy of that Equality Impact Assessment;

4) Why was a baffled upright deemed to be necessary here when this design
is not used elsewhere in York for barriers that appear to perform the same
function (e.g. approximate location (53.946117, -1.066161))?

5) Why was baseplate deemed to be necessary here when this design is not
used elsewhere in York for barriers that appear to perform the same
function (e.g. approximate location (53.946117, -1.066161))?

6) Who designed this barrier, including the baffles and baseplate? 

6a) If this was acquired from a standard manufacturer could you please
indicate from whom.

or

6b) If this was a custom design please provide design statements and a
disability impact assessment of the design.

7) Who installed this barrier?

8) Who approved this barrier?

 

I note that this route forms part of the signposted and mapped orbital
cycle network in York;

  

9) Who does this cycle route fall under the remit of?

10a) Were they consulted prior to installation?

10b) If so, what was their response?

10b.i) If they did not approve, why was this
ignored/overruled/disregarded, and by whom?

10b.ii) If they did approve, please provide evidence to support this.

 

As this forms part of the signposted and advertised local cycle network,
it is not unreasonable to expect cyclists, including disabled and adaptive
cyclists, to wish to pass along here, as they are legally entitled to do.

It is further not unreasonable to assume that cyclists, including disabled
and adaptive cyclists should wish to access and enjoy the amenity value of
the ancient common land of Hobmoor.

It is also reasonable to assume that many cyclists passing through here
may not be familiar with the immediate local area, and may struggle to
find an alternative route;

It is further reasonable to assume that this route will see a higher
proportion of less experienced and less-able cyclists, who are less likely
to be able to achieve or maintain higher paces, and, accordingly, should
not be forced onto main roads and away from quieter routes like this.

It is presumptive to expect a less-able cyclist to carry a radar key with
them at all times.

It is presumptive to expect a less-able cyclist to be able to operate a
locked gate which may or may not be self-closing whilst remaining mounted
on an adaptive cycle.

 

I remind you that dismounting is not an option for the majority of users
of adaptive cycles, such as handcycles, trikes and so on, and requiring a
dismount for users of such 'cycles is a contravention of EA2010
S.20(3)(4), and constitutes an act of direct discrimination under Equality
Act 2010, Section 21.

 

11) What provision has been made for the access of disabled cyclists to
this ancient public land, with regards to the barriers?

12) What allowances and accommodations have been made for disabled
cyclists?

13) Leading on from 12), what provision has been made for cargobikes,
tricyclists, and adaptive cycles in general?

14) How would a cargobike pass through here? (Assume length of 2.15, width
89cm)

15) How would a recumbent handcycle pass through here? (Assume 2.2m
length, 5.5m turning radius - not an extreme example, fairly typical).

16) How would an upright handcycle pass through here? (Assume 1.8m length,
5.5m turning radius - again, not extreme, fairly typical)

17) How would a wheelchair with a clip-on handcycle pass through here?
(assume length of 1.6m, width of 72cm at the bottom, 74cm at the cranks -
Again, not extreme, fairly typical)

 

The UK Government has recently embarked on a programme of encouraging the
construction, provision and improvement of cycling infrastructure.

 

18) Please explain how this barrier, and the de facto banning of disabled
cyclists from this route and space, aligns with this programme.

 

As above, and reiterated here verbatim for clarity and ease of reference;
The Equality Act 2010, Section 20
([9]https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201...) contains a
number of stipulations with regards to provisions, practices, criterion
and physical features. These are legal obligations, and as such, are not
optional. The Equality Act 2010, Section 20 is henceforth referred to as
and by "S.20".

 

19) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with
S.20(3);

20) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with
S.20(4);

21) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with
S.20(7);

22) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with
S.20(9);

23) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with
S.20(10);

 

I again remind you that expecting disabled cyclists to dismount is a
violation of S.20(3). I also remind you that expecting disabled cyclists
to go a long way out of their way to avoid this barrier is a violation of
S.20(3),(4).

 

Finally, I expect immediate and urgent action to be taken in order to
bring this barrier into compliance with the above legislation;

 

24) Please explain what immediate steps will be taken to restore inclusive
and disabled accessibility for the above route.

25) Please provide the correct contact point for any further actions,
including for any potential Letter(s) Before Action(s) to be addressed to.

 

Please provide the requested information in either table, or bullet
pointed format, addressing each question raised fully in turn. 

 

Please do not use "Refer to previous answer N", as none of my questions
are likely to be satisfactorily answered by a prior question, and this
will only result in additional FOI requests.

 

If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the
information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section
12, please provide advice and assistance, under the Section 16 obligations
of the Act, as to how I can refine my request.

 

If you can identify any ways that my request could be refined, I would be
grateful for any further advice and assistance.

 

If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me via email,
and I will be very happy to clarify what I am asking for and to discuss
this request; my details are outlined below.

 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
Help protect the environment! - please don't print this email unless you
really need to.

show quoted sections