Gaps and Barriers : General Guidance
General Guidance | Design List | Evaluation Summary
The guiding principle of providing access for all is 'choose the least restrictive option'. In other words, wherever possible, a path should cross a boundary (e.g a fence, wall or hedge) through an open gap. Only if this is inappropriate, for example because of the need to control livestock or restrict vehicular access, should consideration be given to the installation of a gate or other structure.
If so desired, the types of user that can pass through a gap can be controlled through the installation of a structure that limits this width or provides some other physical constraint. The minimum width of gap to accommodate walkers, cyclists and horseriders, but exclude motor cars, is 1200mm: the preferred maximum is 1525mm. These widths will, however, also permit access by motorcyclists.
Through careful design, access by certain types of user or vehicle can be restricted. In practice, such a structure may act more as a deterrent than a barrier, since those who are determined will usually find a way through, over, or around it. To some, the presence of an apparently impassable obstacle may even be a challenge to their ingenuity and resourcefulness. In such circumstances, a more productive approach to the problem may lie in educational initiatives focusing on public safety, social responsibility, and the provision of alternative sites.
The siting of access controls can also influence their effectiveness. The optimum solution, particularly where public safety is at risk, will be to install a barrier at either end of the route to prevent, so far as possible, any unauthorised access. If the objective is more one of a deterrence than prevention, it may be sufficient to locate a single barrier near the mid-point on a route, rather than at either end. A strategic natural pinch point, such as the entrance to a tunnel or on a bridge, can often be very effective. The fact that the whole route cannot be traversed is frequently a sufficient deterrent to most car drivers and motorcyclists.
It is important to remember that in seeking to restrict access to some unwanted users, particularly motorcyclists, constraints may be unintentionally placed on legitimate users, such as horse riders and disabled people in motorised buggies. Decisions should be based upon the balance of local interests and will often involve some form of compromise. This may require the dimensions of the gap to be reduced to less than the optimum, and possibly close to the minimum, for certain types of legitimate user. Only in exceptional circumstances should the interests of legitimate users be overridden by the desire to deter access by others. In some situations, this may be an acceptable option if it is felt that the introduction of restrictions for a limited period may induce unwanted users to go elsewhere. A solution may also lie in a broader approach to recreational planning by making provision for the needs of 'unwanted users' at a different purpose-designed site.
Care should also be taken that vehicle barriers are not installed thoughtlessly or indiscriminately to curtail informal, but legitimate, parking or access in the countryside. The emphasis should always be on positive access management by the provision of proper facilities or through consultation and discussion. The installation of barriers should often be seen as a last resort when other approaches have failed to achieve the desired result.
When installing barriers or other structures that may limit access, consideration should always be taken of the needs of people with disabilities and of obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (see Appendix 2). In the context of the installation of access controls, the Act requires that, as from October 1999, physical adjustments will be required to existing barriers to give access to those with disabilities. From 2004, any new or existing barrier that denies access specifically to disabled people is likely to be unlawful.