High Court set to hear legal challenge against Department for Transport over kerb heights

The High Court has given permission for a judicial review brought by a visually impaired woman over the Department for Transport's guidance on tactile paving.

The claimant, Sarah Leadbetter, says that the Department for Transport ignored research showing that a kerb height under 60mm is unsafe for blind or visually impaired pedestrians when formulating its guidance on tactile paving.

According to Leadbetter, who is visually impaired and depends on her guide dog and a long white cane to navigate the streets, the kerb has to be of a certain height to stop guide dogs walking directly into the road or a person using a long white cane doing the same, as they cannot detect where the pavement ends, and the road starts.

She claims that University College London research from 2009 shows that a minimum 60mm kerb height is needed to keep her from walking into traffic while using a mobility aid. 

Responding to the High Court's decision to grant permission for a judicial review, Leadbetter said: "The updated Guidance was a long time coming and I was devastated to learn the kerb height needed to ensure my safety when working with my Guide Dog or when I have to use a long white cane was not set at 60mm. Anything lower than this height simply will not do, it will not keep me or my Guide Dog safe.

She added: "There is a reason why a kerb should be 60mm, it stops you from walking into danger, directly into the road with moving traffic, which is extremely dangerous and disorienting as a blind or visually impaired person.

"The kerb is a vital tool that needs to be present on all pavements to keep us separate from moving traffic and from people riding bikes on the road and in cycle lanes."

Andrew Hodgson, the President of the National Federation of the Blind of the UK, said the Department for Transport's guidance "is simply not fit for purpose and it needs to be ripped up and started again". 

He claimed that evidence his organisation gave to the Department for Transport during their consultation on updating the guidance was ignored.

The Department for Transport has been approached for a comment.

Adam Carey