To consider a presentation of the Disabled Ramblers.
Minutes:
A representative of the Disabled Ramblers attended the meeting to provide a presentation on the work of the Disabled Ramblers.
The following comments were made/issues raised:
· The Disabled Ramblers reported that their planned routes were fully planned, tested, risk assessed and then given a grading of 1-3, and that they ran an annual programme of 24 rambles.
· It was reported that they actively campaigned for the removal of man-made barriers in the countryside, without wanting Tarmac everywhere. This was partly done by working with relevant bodies such as Sustrans and some members of the Disabled Ramblers are also members of their respective Local Access Forums.
· It was reported that there was some confusion regarding the rights of mobility scooters, and it was stated that they had the same right of access as walkers, although access to footpaths is dependent on barriers, terrain and type of scooter.
· It was reported that the Disabled Ramblers felt that there were two main barriers to accessing the countryside which were the physical barriers such as A frames and box kissing gates; and people’s understanding and perception. It was stated that this barrier of perception stems from lack of understanding about mobility scooter capability; an assumption of there being assistance for people using mobility scooters; and concern over illegal access often overriding a clear understanding of legal access. Additionally, language which was not inclusive could be a barrier to this misunderstanding, although this was starting to be addressed by uses of the words “wheeler” and “wheeling”.
· It was reported that the most commonly used accessible gates were the one-way bridle gate, the two-way bridle gate, and RADAR key operated gates. However, these all came with issues which can take time to overcome. Solutions had in different forms from various local authorities, including creating separate gates which can allow vehicle access whilst maintaining a chicane to prevent people walking straight out onto the road; laying down rocks in the gap next to a vehicle gate so as to prevent quad bike access; and changing vehicle gates to have RADAR key locks to allow access.
· The Chair commented that much of the content of the presentation was familiar to the Forum, with access barrier issues forming part of discussion in previous meetings, and that barrier issues obviously created a significant problem for a significant portion of the population. Additionally, this could create conflict when discussing the need of barriers to prevent motorcycle access and for safety reasons, but that this should not be a reason to stop lawful use.
· Members enquired as to whether there was similar category grading for people who were disabled but could walk as for mobility scooter users. In response, members of the Forum were advised that joining instructions were issues prior to rambles which would indicate this, including a map of the route and a description, including the length and if there are any steep hills.
· Members enquired as to whether the Disabled Ramblers taught people how to use the scooters prior to the rambles. In response, members of the Forum were advised that training was provided and that a large obstacle for some people was that they loved walking earlier in their life and were hesitant to take up use of a scooter but found it liberating once they started using them. Additionally, all scooter users were assessed, including through a medical questionnaire. They were also talked through all of the controls and given practice.
· Members thanked the representative of the Disabled Ramblers for the presentation, adding that they would like to see the entirety of the Trans Pennine Trail made as accessible as possible, and that the example from Lymm had shown that these changes were transformational to accessibility.
· Members enquired as to whether the Disabled Ramblers had ever made a legal challenge to any local authorities in regard to barriers on the basis of discrimination. In response, members of the Forum were advised that the Disabled Ramblers had never personally made a legal challenge as this would require specific local knowledge as well as a greater amount of funding, and that they tended to work with larger organisations which had a greater degree of influence than they did such as Natural England and Sustrans.
· Members commented that the evidence from Sustrans suggested that the removal of barriers increased the usage of footpaths and that this would reduce anti-social behaviour as it was more difficult to commit anti-social behaviour when the footpath was being used more.
· Members noted that in Stockport there had been motorcycle tire tracks on the path from Tiviot Way in the A frame barriers, proving that the barriers did not prevent illegal access but only legal access by disables users.
· It was reported that many wheelchair and mobility scooter users struggled to get on footpaths near Reddish Vale Visitor’s Centre, and nor could a mobility scooter access the Community Garden.
· The Strategy Growth and Improvement Manager provided an update on the implementation of barrier policy. Namely, that the policy had been adopted and funding had been secured, with the placement of initial priorities being undertaken. However, this was undermined by the changing of delivery abilities as Totally Local Company ceased to take on much of the work. A new company to deliver on this had to be found, and as a consequence the only work which had taken place was on the gates at Bramhall Park. Some money had been carried forward from last year’s plan and further work was being done on priorities. However, at least one of the sites would have to go through Area Committee, with specific approvals from ward members, but the reports were being drafted.
· Members commented that they would continue to press the Council as best they could to get action on some of the barrier issues in Stockport.
RESOLVED – That the presentation be noted.