Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision to install access control barriers along a public cycle route. The Council considered the relevant guidance and information when making its decision, so we cannot criticise it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to consider the rights of non-standard cycle users when it installed barriers along a public cycle route. Mr X said the barriers are narrow and he must carry and drag his tricycle through, and other restrictors are too narrow for him to get through. Mr X also said the Council lied by saying it previously told him the barriers would be too narrow and told the press officers had met him to resolve the issue.
2. Mr X said lifting and dragging the tricycle has caused him back pain and he is unable to have the same access to the cycle route as able-bodied cyclists. Mr X would like the Council to alter the barriers so he can access the route.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended).
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Rights of way and cycle path design

8. Councils are responsible for ensuring the public can use the rights of way network within the area it covers. 
9. There are four categories of rights of way which are shown on a Definitive Map (which is a legal record of their existence). These categories include restricted byways, which are for people on foot, on horseback, leading a horse or travelling in or on any vehicle which is not mechanically propelled.
10. The local transport note (LTN) 1/20 cycle infrastructure design guidance says access controls can reduce the usability of a route by all cyclists and can exclude some disabled people and non-standard cycle users. It says councils should try not to use access controls unless there is a significant problem with antisocial moped or motorcycle use that cannot be controlled through policing.
11. The LTN 1/20 guidance provides councils with recommendations they should consider when changing existing cycle facilities or designing new ones. The guidance says that councils are expected to give due consideration to the guidance, but it also gives them flexibility on cycling infrastructure design.

Background

12. In 2021, the Council replaced barriers, chicanes and gates on a cycle path with drop-down bollards in line with the LTN 1/20 guidance. The Council said this improved access for disabled users of the cycle path but increased anti-social behaviour involving off-road motorcycles and quad bikes. The Council said this caused a safety risk and a public nuisance. The Council received a number of complaints about the anti-social behaviour, so it investigated potential solutions.

What happened

13. In early 2024, the Council considered options to prevent anti-social behaviour along the path. It considered using targeted policing but decided this would not be efficient. The Council also considered installing CCTV cameras but decided this was not a solution due to costs and that officers could not quickly react to incidents. The Council also considered re-installing physical barriers and inhibitors to stop anti-social vehicles accessing the path.
14. The Council arranged for an external company to complete an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) in April 2024 to consider the options. The EQIA looked at the impact installing access controls would have on people with protected characteristics, including disabilities.
15. The EQIA recommended the Council considered installing access controls and said it should identify an alternative route for non-standard cycle users. The EQIA said the Council’s proposed changes to the path would restrict anti-social vehicles and would be positive for users, including those with protected characteristics.
16. The Council spoke with a disability charity in November 2024 to discuss alternatives that avoided using access controls. The charity had concerns over the EQIA’s recommendations and said its view was the Council would be acting unlawfully if it followed the recommendations. The charity did not suggest any solutions other than those the Council had previously considered.
17. In late November 2024, the Council put notices up along the path advising users of the proposed changes. The Council also spoke about the plans with non-standard cycle users, the police, the MP and local councillors.
18. The Council responded to the charity in December 2024, stating it had considered its public sector equality duties as it had arranged for an independent EQIA and engaged with stakeholders including residents, the police, the MP and councillors. It said it also had met its duty by putting up signs along the path to make the public aware of the proposed works. The Council said it had legitimate concerns about public safety, and it had decided to continue with the proposed installation as it was proportionate and necessary to prevent anti-social behaviour.
19. The following day, the Council sent out a briefing note to its Cabinet Member for Transport to confirm its decision to re-install physical barriers. The briefing note stated it had considered alternatives but decided physical barriers were the most effective way to prevent anti-social behaviour and increase safety along the path. The Council also stated in the note it had chosen barriers that were wide enough for large mobility scooters to pass through but would restrict access for quad bikes. The Council said it would install the barriers in early 2025.
20. The Council visited the site again in mid-December 2024 to check the notices along the path and replaced any that were damaged or missing so users could raise any concerns they had.
21. Mr X contacted the Council about the proposed changes, and it visited the site with him in January 2025 before it installed the barriers. The Council discussed Mr X’s needs with him, but it could not find a barrier that prevented access for anti-social vehicles but allowed the width of Mr X’s cycle through. The Council installed the barriers later in January 2025.
22. On 7 July 2025, Mr X complained to the Council that it did not consider his needs when it installed the access controls. Mr X said he now had to regularly stop cycling to pull his bike through barriers, which has reduced enjoyment and could injure him. The Council responded that it would not progress Mr X’s complaint to stage one of its complaints process, as it had previously responded to his concerns. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman in early October 2025.
23. Mr X complained to the Council again and the Council responded on 16 January 2026. In its response, the Council explained the steps it had taken before it installed the barriers, including the EQIA and considering other options. The Council said it had spoken with police, the MP, councillors and the charity before making its decision.
24. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it recognised Mr X’s concerns, but it had considered its duties and installed the barriers as a necessary and proportionate decision to increase safety. The Council also said it recognises Mr X’s alternative route means travelling on the highway, but it had to balance Mr X’s needs against the safety risks caused by the anti-social vehicles.
25. Mr X told the Ombudsman the Council lied when it said it had told him the barriers would be too narrow for his cycle. Mr X also said the Council lied when it told the press it had met with him to resolve the issue, as it met him before it installed the barriers.

My findings

26. National guidance says Councils should try not to use access controls unless there is a significant problem with anti-social vehicles that cannot be controlled through policing. The evidence shows there was an issue with anti-social vehicles when the Council installed drop down barriers in 2021. To address the issue the Council considered other options, including policing, but decided the most appropriate action to reduce the safety risk caused by anti-social vehicles was to install control measures.
27. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
28. In making its decision, the Council arranged for an external company to complete an EQIA to consider the options and the impact of these on path users. The Council also took account of the relevant guidance, information from the charity, the police, residents, a disability charity, its own legal advice and information from Mr X. I recognise the impact the access controls have had on Mr X. However, on balance, the Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it. The Council was not at fault.
29. Mr X said the Council lied to him and the press about its actions. On balance, there is not enough evidence the Council lied or that it caused Mr X a significant injustice. The Council had already installed the barriers when it allegedly lied, so this would not have affected its decision.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find no fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman