The continuing saga of a chicane barrier

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Just a quick thing...

I have chosen not to use adverts, pop-ups, mailing lists, or mandatory subscriptions, but it means there is an ongoing cost for me in researching and writing content, and generally advocating for active travel - time spent not working! If you can throw a few pounds my way to help out, your support is gratefully received! Thank you!

Buy Me A Coffee

Back in April 2024, Warwickshire County Council suddenly installed, without warning, a new chicane barrier on a path close to a formal shared use walking and cycling route. That barrier has become a protracted saga of tweets, a Freedom of Information request, and a multi-stage complaint which is still active and unresolved today.

The barrier replaces an aged pair of concrete bollards, and was installed on the request of a local county councillor as a way of dealing with alleged issues of motorcycle use on the short path that connects between two roads. Of course, there’s no data available from the County Council to confirm there is an issue; it’s simply been installed on request with apparantly no study to determine the issue, nor consultation beforehand.

The County Council has stated that despite its close proximity to a shared use path, it being a better width than some other shared use paths in the town, and there being no other reasonable alternative routes, the short section of footpath where the barrier has been installed is just that – a footpath. It’s not for cycling, so they haven’t considered cycle access as part of the installation.

A pair of old concrete bollards on an off-road path. While slightly narrow by today's standards, these offer an estimated 1-1.3m of clearance to the residential road beyond.
The old concrete bollards removed for the chicane barrier

What’s the issue?

So what is the problem with putting in a new chicane barrier? Does it really cause that much hindrance?

Well, to me, no. I can usually weave around similar barriers without too much issue. But that’s not the case for everyone, and it’s not about me. People riding anything other than a “standard” bicycle may well struggle with the obstruction. This might include people using adapted cycles, tricycles, tandems, cycles with child seats, towing trailers, with tagalongs etc. – basically, anything that’s longer or wider than the “standard” bicycle could be impacted by the barrier, either hindering access or preventing it entirely. That’s before we get into larger mobility aids for walking/wheeling.

One might use the County Council’s argument that it’s not a cycle path, therefore people shouldn’t ride through the space anyway. However, this ignores some fundamental issues – 1) it’s been used as cycle access for probably at least twenty-five years; 2) there are no other direct and off-road routes to access the nearby shared use path, with any alternative requiring a significant on-road diversion of about 1.25km (versus the direct link of about 47 metres); 3) some riders find dismounting to walk through the obstruction difficult or impossible; 4) even if dismounting is an option, a pushed cycle is as much obstructed as a ridden cycle – perhaps more so!

Google Earth satellite view map showing the route of the formal shared use path, the short link obstructed by a chicane barrier, and the significant diversion to avoid that barrier.
Chicane Barrier Diversion. Green = Formal shared use route; Yellow = Direct links obstructed by barriers; Red = Diversion to avoid the new chicane barrier. Red markers indicate chicane barrier obstructions (yes, loads).

Throughout this issue, Warwickshire County Council has continued to ignore its own failings and obligations, as well as the multitude of issues that these barriers cause. Aside from the specific access difficulties noted above, these can be summarised as follows:

  • The County Council is using repealed legislation, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), and not the Equality Act 2010.
  • Due to the above, no Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) has been conducted.
  • The County Council has a Local Transport Plan which puts an emphasis on active travel, but which is hindered by this barrier and the insistence that it is only a footpath.
  • With the path being used for cycle access for what would appear to be at least twenty-five years (the route exists on historical satellite images back to at least this time), it could be classed as a bridleway under common law usage, where cyclists are permitted1.
  • The barrier is under 100 metres away from a formal shared use route which provides access to playing fields, playgrounds, schools, the leisure centre, and the town centre. There is no reasonable and direct alternative connection with the adjoining residential roads.
  • One of the justifications for using a chicane barrier is its similarity to other similar but aged restrictions, including those which already exist on the formal shared use route. The Council stated these barriers had been in place for “at least ten years”, but it is clear from Google Street View they have existed since at least 2009 – fifteen years – and therefore pre-date existing legislation and standards.
  • There is no data to evidence a specific problem of illegal motorcycle use.
  • Even if there is an issue, lawful users shouldn’t be punished for something that should be dealt with through police action.
  • Barriers won’t actually stop motorcycle passage; they’ll just slow riders down.
  • Barriers restrict route capacity causing congestion at peak times and increased risk of conflict – including with those motorcycle riders.
  • Restricted space increases exposure to surface detritus and fouling.
  • Barriers can become loitering points, increasing the risk (even if just a perceived risk) of antisocial behaviour.
  • Barriers restrict and slow escape from antisocial behaviour or more serious criminal incidents.

Raising a formal complaint and an unsatisfactory response

With all the above points in mind, following the tweets and Freedom of Information Request which revealed important information about this installation, I logged a formal complaint (PDF) with the County Council explaining how it has not used correct legislation nor its own policies, nor has it provided sufficient justification for the restriction.

In that complaint, I made a number of specific points and requested specific actions to be taken, or justification to be given in the event that the Council chose not to comply with such actions. Many of these points were implied throughout the complaint document, but actions were specifically listed.

After a number of delays, the response to the complaint was finally forthcoming – and entirely unsatisfactory, given it reiterated points which formed the basis of the complaint in the first place, and failed to address the specific issues raised.

I am in receipt of your complaint regarding the recent removal of two concrete bollards and installation of 2 panels of pedestrian guardrail.

I have read through the details you have kindly provided. As mentioned in your attachment you have already been afforded a lot of information about why the bollards were removed and it has been advised that route is not a dedicated cycle route, it is a footway.  Officers quite often have to deal with conflicting priorities and have limited choices, often being lead by Elected Members.  It is often quite challenging to be able to accommodate all highway users and deal with anti-social behaviour as in this case. I have spoken to the local ward Councillor who has confirmed that the residents raised concerns to him about theirs and their families safety being put at risk because of the speeding motor cyclists are now very satisfied, feel a great deal safer and their quality of life has improved. 

In response to your specific questions:

  1. I have spoken with the Councillor involved with the original request and he is satisfied with the guardrail that is currently in place and it is not our intention to remove / replace them.
  2. No timescale as they are not being removed.
  3. In terms of highway maintenance of existing assets we will continue to operate in accordance with our current practices.
  4. There are no plans currently to review historical assets and infrastructure, as mentioned above.

I appreciate this is unlikely to be the response you were hoping for and I am sorry I can’t be more positive.  However, I would like to reassure you that there are a great many hard working Officers within the Council that are doing their best on a daily basis in very difficult circumstances.

Kind regards

To be clear, I don’t doubt there are many hard-working officers within the Council doing everything they can in circumstances which everybody knows are difficult – but that does not negate the Council’s responsibility to do things properly. If resources are such an issue to the extent that doing things properly is not possible, then doing nothing and leaving the old bollards in place would have been a better choice.

Looking at the responses to each numbered action:

  1. I first asked that the restriction be brought into line with with “current legislation, design guidance, and policy”, that it be evaluated with respect to the Equality Act with an Equality Impact Assessment to be conducted, that current design guidance standards are employed, and to reconsider the path as a shared use space – with an ultimate aim of removing the chicane and reinstating bollards. The County Council has ignored all of this, essentially allowing the whims of the local councillor to override legal obligations.
  2. A failure to provide a timeline for resolution is only given because the County Council is so far refusing to correct its mistake and implement an asset that adheres to current legislation, design standards, and policies.
  3. I asked about any measures the County Council will put in place to ensure new installations of restrictions are compliant with legislation, design guidance, and policies. This response talks about existing assets, not new ones.
  4. After I asked about reviewing and removing or replacing existing infrastructure over time, this response suggests that the County Council has no ongoing process of reviewing its assets – essentially, fit and forget, regardless of whether a particular asset remains suitable or is subject to wear and tear or a certain lifespan.

After receiving this response, having taken a moment to wonder at just how poor it is – especially given how long it took to arrive (see the timeline, below) – I expressed my dissatisfaction and gave a deadline for a proper and considered reply before the complaint would need to be escalated. Sadly, that deadline passed without so much as an acknowledgement, so the escalation has started.

What happens next?

At this point we arrive at a pause in the saga as the escalated complaint is considered. In moving the matter to the next level, I provided a copy of the original complaint document, the response, and my follow-up to that response explaining its failings.

I also included a timeline which can be seen below. I am also disappointed in the specific handling of this matter, including the time taken to acknowledge the complaint, the original 10 working day deadline expiring before the complaint was even looked at, and the amount of time taken to provide what is a very dismissive and ill-considered response.

As for what happens next, we await the response to the escalated complaint. That reply will be published in due course so keep an eye on this website and on social media for further updates.


Complaint timeline

The full timeline is now available as a separate page.


  1. Garland & Salaman v Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Surrey County Council ↩︎

Have you found this content interesting or useful? If so, and if you are able to, any contributions are greatly appreciated! Thank you! Oh, and do please share with others!

Buy Me A Coffee