Leeds and Liverpool Canal (Leigh Branch) Tow Path - Equality Impact Assessment and EA2010 Obligations

The request was partially successful.

The Heavy Metal Handcyclist

Dear Canal and River Trust,

I write to you in relation to the barriers along the Leeds and Liverpool Canal (Leigh Branch) Tow Path, with specific reference to 53.5008585,-2.5926018, just off Warrington Road and connected to the Dover Bridge Car Park.

You may also find reference to this specific installation in the twitter thread found here;
https://twitter.com/DocManniday/status/1...

This barrier consists of a chicane barrier, requiring a 180 degree turn, and a horse stile.

Due to the layout of the chicane barrier, this route is inaccessible to those using larger, longer wheelchairs and mobility scooters ("Invalid Carriages", as they are unable to make the 180 degree turn within the barrier.

The horse stile itself is impassible to those using such carriages, as they are unable to lift themselves over the barrier.

Additionally, this area is rendered inaccessible tp those using adaptive cycles, such as handcycles, cargocycles, and bicycles with tag-along trailers; These types of longer, less manoeuvrable cycles are unable to make the turn within the chicane, and the users of such cycles are significantly less likely to be physically able to lift their cycles over the stile, particularly disabled cyclists who are often completely unable to dismount in order to do so; This is, in essence, a de facto ban on certain classes of disabled people from passing along this route as they are legally permitted to do so.

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 full, permanent metal and wood fence used here, instead of either a folding or retracting bollard?
5) Who installed this barrier?
6) Who approved this barrier?

I note that this route forms part of the signposted and mapped cycle network in Warrington and alongside the canal;

7) Who does this cycle route fall under the remit of?
8a) Were they consulted prior to installation?
8b) If so, what was their response?
8b.i) If they did not approve, why was this ignored/overruled/disregarded, and by whom?
8b.ii) If they did approve, please provide evidence to support this.

As this forms part of the signposted and advertised local and potentially regional 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 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.

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.

9) What provision has been made for the passage of cyclists along this signposted cycle route, with regards to this barrier?
10) What allowances and accommodations have been made for disabled cyclists?
11) Leading on from 10), what provision has been made for cargobikes, tricyclists, and adaptive cycles in general?
12) How would a cargobike pass through here? (Assume length of 2.15, width 89cm)
13) How would a recumbent handcycle pass through here? (Assume 2.2m length, 5.5m turning radius - not an extreme example, fairly typical).
14) How would an upright handcycle pass through here? (Assume 1.8m length, 5.5m turning radius - again, not extreme, fairly typical)
15) 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.

LTN1/20 8.3 specifically and directly states that barriers that are installed must not exclude disabled people; It further states that access controls should not be used nor retained unless a demonstrable need for them exists, and advises that, where barriers are required, bollards should be considered as the first, default choice.

Whilst I recognize that this barrier predates the guidance in LTN1/20, the local authority (and all public bodies) have a duty of anticipation with regards to equalities matters under the EA2010 S.149, and this has been the case for a decade at the point of writing.

16) Please explain how the installation of this barrier, and the subsequent de facto banning of disabled cyclists from this route, 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".

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

22) Please explain what immediate steps will be taken to restore inclusive and disabled accessibility for the above route.
23) 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.

Please note that I am writing to you using a name by which I am well known, that being my twitter handle and ID; This is by far the name by which I am best known, and it is permitted within the ICO Best Practice guidelines.
I am doing this due to previous threatening behaviour and remarks, and I accordingly wish to remain pseudonymous at this time

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

Yours faithfully,
The Heavy Metal Handcyclist (@crippledcyclist)

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Dear Sir/Madam,

Request Reference: FOI 140/20

Thank you for your request for information. I can confirm this request was received on 21/12/2020 and this is being dealt in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under the terms of the Act you are entitled to a response within 20 working days of receipt.

If for any reason we are unable to meet this deadline we will keep you fully informed of the reasons for this and will tell you when you can expect a response.

In the meantime if you have any queries about this email, please do not hesitate to get in contact. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Indy

Indy Virdee
Information Governance Manager
Legal & Governance Services

show quoted sections

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Dear Sir/Madam,

Request Reference: FOI 140/20

I am writing to let you know that we are currently working at a reduced capacity and unfortunately have not been able to gather all the information your request within the 20 working day deadline. We are working with the relevant teams to gather all this information and aim to provide a response to you as soon as we can.

Once again please accept our sincere apologies for the delay.

Kind Regards,
Hannah

Hannah Mobberley
Information Governance Advisor
Legal & Governance Services
T: 07342023642

Canal & River Trust
Canal and River Trust, Aqua House, 20 Lionel Street, Birmingham, B3 1AQ

show quoted sections

The Heavy Metal Handcyclist

Dear Canal & River Trust,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Canal & River Trust's handling of my FOI request 'Leeds and Liverpool Canal (Leigh Branch) Tow Path - Equality Impact Assessment and EA2010 Obligations'.

This request is now long overdue. A response is legally required to have been made by this point.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

Yours faithfully,

The Heavy Metal Handcyclist

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Dear Heavy Metal Handcyclist,

Thank you for contacting the Canal & River Trust with your request for information. The Trust has treated your request as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have been appointed the reviewing officer for your internal review and apologise for the delay in response to your original request.

The Trust’s obligations under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 are limited in scope to information relating to statutory functions which were transferred to it from British Waterways under the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order under 2012 – these functions relate to the operation and licensing of vessels on our inland waterway network. You can view a copy of the Transfer of Functions order using the following link https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/201....

Access to the towpath is part of our wider charitable objectives and therefore the provisions of FOI and our Public Sector Equality Duty would not apply here.

However, I am replying to your requests in the interests of openness and transparency.

Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the towpath. We are always open to discussions on how to improve our towpaths and ensure they are useable for all.

Please see below the Trust’s response to your questions.

1) When was this barrier installed?

To the best of our knowledge, the barrier was installed in the late 1990s or early 2000s.

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;

No, this would not have been applicable at time of installation.

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

The Trust does not hold this information.

4) Why was a full, permanent metal and wood fence used here, instead of either a folding or retracting bollard?

Whilst we do not hold records confirming this, to the best of our knowledge the barrier was installed as part of a towpath upgrade which was a joint project with Wigan Council in the late 1990s or early 2000s. The barrier was designed to ensure the availability of the towpath to use by wheelchairs, pushchairs and cycles. The aim of the barrier is to stop anti-social misuse of the towpath by restricting motorcycles and other unauthorised motor vehicles using the towpath at speed which enabled longevity of the towpath and promoted customer safety.

5) Who installed this barrier?

We believe that the barrier was installed by British Waterways.

6) Who approved this barrier?

We believe the barrier was approved by British Waterways in conjunction with Wigan Council.

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

This does not appear to be a designated cycle route and it is not displayed on the Sustrans website as being a cycle route. However, it is designated as a general traffic free route with a good surface.

8a) Were they consulted prior to installation?

Not applicable

8b) If so, what was their response?

Not applicable

8b.i) If they did not approve, why was this ignored/overruled/disregarded, and by whom?

Not applicable

8b.ii) If they did approve, please provide evidence to support this.

No way markers have been erected by the Trust in this area, nor is there evidence of any other signs referring to this section as being a cycle path/route by name.

9) What provision has been made for the passage of cyclists along this signposted cycle route, with regards to this barrier?

The barrier was a design which was agreed in conjunction with Wigan Council to accept wheelchairs, pushchairs and cycles. On a site visit by our local Area Operations Manager, we have been unable to identify any local signage referring to a cycle route.

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

The barrier was a design which was agreed in conjunction with Wigan Council to accept wheelchairs, pushchairs and cycles.

11) Leading on from 10), what provision has been made for cargobikes, tricyclists, and adaptive cycles in general?

No specific provisions have been put in place for cargobikes, tricyclists, and adaptive cycles however the barrier was designed to ensure availability of the towpath to wheelchair users.

12) How would a cargobike pass through here? (Assume length of 2.15, width 89cm)
13) How would a recumbent handcycle pass through here? (Assume 2.2m length, 5.5m turning radius - not an extreme example, fairly typical).
14) How would an upright handcycle pass through here? (Assume 1.8m length, 5.5m turning radius - again, not extreme, fairly typical)
15) 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)
16) Please explain how the installation of this barrier, and the subsequent de facto banning of disabled cyclists from this route, aligns with this programme.

Towpaths are by their nature often narrow. The existing barriers, which pre-date the legislation referred to, were designed because of issues of use of unauthorised vehicles (cars/motorcycles/quad bikes/etc) along the towpath and the access from the nearby carpark putting the safety of other users at risk. The design of the barrier was chosen to ensure the availability of access for wheelchair users.

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

The installation of the barriers was prior to The Equality Act in 2010 and therefore this was not taken into consideration at the time of installation.

22) Please explain what immediate steps will be taken to restore inclusive and disabled accessibility for the above route. Disabled visitors and accessibility were in contemplation at the time of choosing the existing barrier, and to ensure access for wheelchair users.
In line with our Equality Policy for Customer Service Delivery (available here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/ori... ) the Trust will keep the existence of the barrier under review and consider whether there are reasonable adjustments which could be made to further increase the access for disabled users.

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

All correspondence should be sent to our regional enquiries team via email at [email address] from where it will be directed to the appropriate team.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request for an internal review, then you are able to contact the Information Commissioner by telephoning 0303 123 1113.

Many Thanks,

Indy Virdee,
Information Governance Manager

show quoted sections