Escalated complaint still ignored by Council

Reading Time: 6 minutes

The seemingly unending chicane barrier issue raised with Warwickshire County Council continues as a manager finally responds to the escalated complaint detailed back in July. It’s taken a long time, and a lot of chasing to get this reply – but which still fails to properly consider the points originally raised back on 16 May 2024.

To briefly recap, in April the County Council installed a chicane barrier on a three-metre wide path that is commonly used to access a formal shared use foot and cycle route less than 100 metres away, restricting active travel access between two roads about 45 metres apart. After enquiring, it transpired this was done on the request of a county councillor responding to alleged complaints of motorcycle use, but no data on this issue was available. The Council also revealed that they had not conducted an equality impact assessment given they used outdated, repealed legislation (The Disability Discrimination Act 1995) instead of the current Equality Act 2010 as their basis for determining access requirements. Given all the issues, I raised a thorough and detailed complaint which to date has been largely brushed off.

Full details of the matter, the complaint, and the original response can be found on the earlier article, and a detailed timeline of the issue is also available.

Following the unsatisfactory original response received back on 05 July, I asked that this be escalated and looked at again. It has taken six weeks for the response which I will copy below – that’s six weeks with no firm communications, frequent enquiries by me as to what that state is, and no estimated timescales, until the email arrived completely out of the blue today.

Apologies for the delay in responding to your concerns on access on the footpath between Waverley Ave and Charlecote Walk. I have assessed the course of action taken by County Highways Officers as well as input received from other teams in WCC to the matter.

Firstly, the section you refer to as being defacto shared use, is indeed a footpath intended for pedestrian travel only.  Should you wish to assert your position of it being a Bridleway, then you will have to follow the due process to obtain a Definitive Map Modification Order in the first instance. More information can be found on our website as below:

https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/environment-planning/changes-rights-way/4

Secondly, as its current status is that of a Footpath, we have taken the appropriate action to prevent unauthorised usage and anti-social behaviour associated with this. From the dimensions and layout of the barriers, I cannot see that they are preventing authorised highway use of this route by either disabled or non- disabled users.

On this basis, we have no intention, as set out in previous correspondence, of removing the barriers currently on site. 

I am indeed in favour of active travel routes and encouraging mode change to more sustainable travel. However, this needs to be done by looking at the wider network and making sure correct legislation is followed and appropriate design is undertaken to ensure routes are successful in this endeavour.

Here we have very little new information, beyond a hint about how to get the footpath reclassified as a bridleway, and thus formally a shared use space. Beyond that, we have the insistence that the County Council will not review its decision to implement the restriction nor will any revisions be made to the installation.

There is no acknowledgement that the County Council has used the wrong legislation, no consideration of current active travel policies, no thought about how people with larger cycles can move through the space even if walking, no explanation of how their decision and implementation adheres to current legislation, and no explanation of a reasonable alternative route for those whose journeys are hindered or made impossible by the restriction.

What is particularly concerning is this manager states it is important to follow correct legislation and appropriate design, despite it being absolutely clear that this is not the case in this situation. They also say that they can see no issue with access being prevented both for disabled and non-disabled users – yet there is no equality impact assessment to determine this.

Beyond that, to me it surely seems to be a conflict of interest that this complaint has been “investigated” (if it can be called that) from the very start by the very department being complained about. Surely a example of the metaphorical “marking your own homework”. For a first stage response as received in July that might have been fine, but for an escalation it would surely be more appropriate to be looked at by a senior officer independent of that team.

I have, of course, written back explaining my ongoing dissatisfaction, asking again that the complaint be looked at properly, that all the points and actions raised within it are addressed and responded to, and that this matter is in fact reviewed by someone outside of the directorate or department for a more impartial look.

As always, updates will be forthcoming as and when they arrive, but as it stands Warwickshire County Council is sticking to its decision to ignore legislation, design standards, and policies on what would seem to be the whim of the county councillor to tackle an undefined issue that puts legitimate users at a disadvantage.

Thank you for your response to this matter. I will look at your link regarding the change of status of the path in question.

Beyond that single, very specific point however, my complaint still has not received a proper reply. I made a number of points that need to be addressed which have been omitted in both the original response and your follow-up today.

For example, I noted that:

• the County Council has used outdated legislation to evaluate the suitability of the new restriction (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 vs Equality Act 2010), and as a result no Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken;
• it has not considered its own policies and intentions for active travel;
• it has no formal data on the alleged instances of antisocial behaviour to support the decision to implement the new restriction now where this has not been a significant concern over the past 20-odd years);
• it is adversely affecting access by people travelling with certain cycles (even when not ridden but walked through the space).
• The restriction adversely impacts active travel to a number of local destinations connected by the very close formal shared use route, including schools, playgrounds, playing fields, the leisure centre, and town centre.

As a result of the points raised, I asked for specific actions:

• Re-evaluate the current restriction and bring it into line with current legislation and design guidance, explain the actions to be taken, and timescales for resolution. So far, WCC has explicitly refused to do this, thus ignoring current legislation.
• For Warwickshire County Council to explain what measures it will put in place to ensure new installations of restrictions, regardless of design or type, comply with current legislation, design guidance, and County Council policies. There has been no response on this point.
• For the County Council to explain what measures it will put in place to re-evaluate and remove/replace as necessary aged restrictions that no longer comply with current legislation, design guidance, and policies. No satisfactory response has been given to this point other than a vague statement stating WCC will “continue to operate in accordance with our current practices”.
• Then in the event that the County Council would not undertake the above actions (as is currently the case), I asked that the County Council explain exactly how the new restriction meets legal requirements under the Equality Act 2010, and to also demonstrate a reasonable diversion for users to connect the short distance from Waverley Avenue to the formal shared use path, should their journey be hindered or made impossible by the new restriction. There has been no response on this point.

So far, the County Council has refused to acknowledge its use of outdated legislation and guidance. Indeed, in your own response today, you take a contradictory position whereby you say it’s important to make sure that “correct legislation is followed and appropriate design is undertaken”, where it is obvious that the County Council has disregarded the Equality Act 2010 with regard to this installation. WCC cannot pick and choose when to follow legislation.

You say that it is important to ensure active travel routes are successful in encouraging mode change to active travel, but this is about restricting an existing, long-standing route, not the creation of a new one. The notion of “encouraging” modal shift is also concerning, where the County Council should be enabling it. Instead, here WCC is hindering active travel and modal change, pushing people back to motor traffic where driving becomes the easier choice – again, a point I noted in the complaint that is contrary to current policies and objectives.

You also say that you cannot see that the barriers “are preventing authorised highway use of this route by either disabled or non-disabled users” – yet based on the Freedom of Information Request made earlier, there has been no equality impact assessment undertaken under current legislation and design guidance to determine this. On Page 2 of the original complaint document, I noted that regardless of the path’s classification there is a clear need for people with cycles to travel through this space. I gave examples of users that would be impacted by this restriction, even if they were to walk through with their cycles. It would seem these examples have been ignored in such a determination. 

Once again, I must refer you back to the original complaint, and insist that it is considered in full and that the County Council provides a proper response that addresses all of the points. This matter should now be handled by a senior officer outside of the County Highways directorate where it can be considered with some degree of independence. Any further failure to provide a proper response will result in a new formal complaint to include not only the core issues fundamental to this issue, but covering how Warwickshire County Council handles such complaints.

I require an acknowledgement of this message by the close of business tomorrow, Wednesday 28 August 2024, and the proper response as per the above by Wednesday 11 September 2024 (i.e., two weeks) as this matter has dragged on for far too long.

---

Complaint timeline.