76745 FOI Cycle Schemes

I write to you in relation to the chicane barriers along the shared pathway through Heynes Green, Cox Green, Maidenhead in two locations along NCN4 (national cycle network route 4), at the following positions:
51.5057437, -0.7547434
51.5055678, -0.7517702
Due to the layout and design of this barrier, this route is inaccessible to those using adaptive cycles, such as handcycles, cargocycles, and bicycles with tag-along trailers, as they are unable to pass through the metal barriers, due to the narrowness of the gap andinsufficient lateral clearance for the swept-space, particularly on a handcycle.
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 also remind you of the anticipatory duty under Section 149 of same act.
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 set of full, permanent metal barriers used here, instead of a set of bollards?
5) Who installed this barrier?
6) Who approved this barrier?
I note that this route part of a shared space, where both cyclists and pedestrians are permitted to pass;
7) Who does this shared 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 national 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 99cm)
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. The local authority (and all public bodies) have a duty of anticipation with regards to equalities matters under the EA2010 S.149, with this has been the case for over a decade at the point of writing.
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"". This section obliges you to not cause disadvantage to disabled persons and, where said disadvantage is discovered to have been caused by a physical feature, to amend it such as to remove that disadvantage.
16) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with S.20(3);
17) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with S.20(4);
18) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with S.20(7);
19) Please clarify how the installation of these barriers aligns with S.20(9);
20) 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;
21) Please explain what immediate steps will be taken to restore inclusive and disabled accessibility for the above route.
22) 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.