The Department for Transport (DfT) is facing a judicial review over its guidance on tactile paving, after a claimant accused officials of ignoring research key to the safety of blind and partially-sighted people.
The High Court has given permission for the judicial review hearing on the issue of standard kerb heights, which was brought by Sarah Leadbetter, who is visually impaired and uses a Guide Dog or a cane to navigate the streets independently .
Ms Leadbetter has argued that the latest government guidance does not take into account research by the University College London in 2009, which found that a minimum 60mm kerb height was needed to protect a blind or visually-impaired person from straying into the road.
Ms Leadbetter said: 'I am very relieved, and I am positive that many other blind and visually impaired people will be too, to hear that this judicial review is going ahead and will be heard in the High Court.
'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. 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 DfT made specific provision for the use of dropped kerbs to ensure that people using a wheelchair or mothers with buggies can get across the road, Ms Leadbetter and her supporters argue that a mandatory 60mm height could have been used elsewhere.
Andrew Hodgson, president of the National Federation of the Blind of the UK, said: ‘This issue has been a long-standing one where we have seen kerbs lowered and even kerbs being totally removed in new street layouts.
'We have actively provided evidence to the Department for Transport through their consultation process of updating the guidance and this was ignored. The very ability of blind and visually impaired people to independently navigate the urban environment is at stake here. We need to instantly know if we are walking into the road to keep us safe and there can be no room for any confusion during the process.
'The Guidance cannot be accepted because is simply not fit for purpose and it needs to be ripped up and started again.'
Elizabeth Cleaver, a solicitor at Bindmans LLP, stated: 'In granting permission the court recognised that the wider public interest is engaged in Ms Leadbetter’s claim, which stands to reason, given that it concerns the ability of blind and visually impaired people to navigate the built environment safely and independently.'
