Bin the Bollards: Why Wand Orcas on Duke Street Are a Lazy, Ugly, and Risky Mistake
- Rory
- Jun 18
- 4 min read
✍️ Author’s Note
This piece was written in direct response to Environment, Climate Emergency and Transport Committee - Monday, 16th June 2025 6.00 p.m decision to approve the Duke Street Active Travel Scheme. It forms part of a broader effort to hold local authorities accountable for poor consultation practices, substandard infrastructure, and the erosion of public trust in active travel policy. I support cycling. I support walking. I support sustainable transport. But I do not support bad design—especially when it hides behind the language of regeneration and inclusion.
If you'd like to see better solutions for Wirral’s streets, or you’re part of a community group, campaign, or business affected by schemes like this, please take a lok at my White paper THE FUTURE OF CYCLING ON WIRRAL
—Rory Wilmer
On Monday 16th June, Wirral’s Environment, Climate Emergency and Transport Committee waved through the Duke Street Active Travel Scheme, a £619,332 project which includes the rollout of wand orcas—cheap plastic bollards with raised rubber bases—as a form of “cycle safety.” This is not regeneration. It’s civic vandalism in disguise.
Despite the best intentions of active travel policy, this scheme offers the worst of all worlds: poor design, visual degradation, accessibility failures, and questionable legality. Here’s the case against wand orcas—and why this scheme should never have been approved in its current form.
1. Visual Clutter in a Heritage Corridor
Wand orcas aren’t infrastructure—they’re traffic furniture. In an area that connects Birkenhead Park (Grade I listed) to a historic bridge and a proposed regeneration corridor, these bollards destroy rather than enhance placemaking. Just look at the design cross-section provided by Wirral Council itself and ask if this screams “quality of place” or “temporary car park works” (Appendix 5 – Cross Section).
This visual intrusion violates principles in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which states all public realm design must be “sympathetic to local character and history” (NPPF, 2023, para. 130c).
2. Undemocratic Process, Outdated Standards
The numbers speak for themselves:
Only 88 people responded to the consultation—despite 22,856 notifications. That’s a 0.38% response rate (Council Report, Appendix 2 – HYS).
Of those, 47 objected and only 41 supported it—yet the scheme was approved anyway (DUKE STREET ACTIVE TRAVEL SCHEME.pdf, p.4).
The consultation took place before the new Active Travel England guidance was published in January 2025—meaning the scheme is already outdated and potentially non-compliant (DUKE STREET ACTIVE TRAVEL SCHEME.pdf, section 8.9).
This is a masterclass in procedural failure. The council’s own officer report admits the consultation was based on superseded guidance.
3. Wand Orcas Are Not Safe
Far from improving safety, wand orcas are barely effective and often dangerous:
A TRL study for Transport for London found that light segregation reduced vehicle encroachment by just 39%—far less than kerbed options (TRL Report: ‘Light Segregation Trials’).
Cyclists regularly fall when clipping dislodged orcas, especially at night or in wet weather. Emergency services have also reported issues with access on similar schemes across the UK.
In Liverpool, wand orcas had to be removed on West Derby Road after repeated vehicle collisions and trip hazards—something Wirral planners appear to have ignored.
Yet Wirral’s justification is vague and circular: “Wand Orca type segregation bollards help to reduce potential conflicts” (Officer Comments, Appendix 3, p.2).
No collision data. No impact analysis. No risk register.
4. Inaccessible by Design
The scheme lacks a full Equality Impact Assessment—a glaring omission given concerns raised in Parliament over blind and visually impaired pedestrians navigating around floating bus stops and bollard-separated lanes.
As Baroness Brinton noted in the House of Lords:
“These designs may look modern and efficient, but for blind and disabled people they are terrifying.”
Despite this, the published report does not include the EIA in full, nor does it demonstrate mitigation of these risks. That places the council on shaky legal ground under the Equality Act 2010 and risks repeating the mistakes that saw Lambeth’s West Dulwich LTN overturned by the High Court for failing to meet consultation and accessibility obligations (Judicial Review ruling summary).
5. Poor Value for Public Money
The Duke Street scheme will cost over £619,000, of which nearly £205,000 has already been spent (Committee Report, p.5). But what are we getting?
Not new cycleways. Not kerb separation. Just plastic bollards, a few lines of paint, and a pedestrian crossing. This is short-term spending on long-term clutter, not serious investment in infrastructure. Even Wirral Council concedes that full kerb separation was dismissed due to cost, not quality (DUKE STREET ACTIVE TRAVEL SCHEME.pdf, section 2.3).
That’s not active travel. That’s austerity street furniture.
6. Local Businesses and Residents Oppose It
Residents and business owners along Duke Street made their views clear in the consultation. Key concerns:
Loss of parking threatening local shops (Appendix 3 – Officer Comments)
Inadequate access for the elderly, disabled and families
Fear that Duke Street will become a rat-run of unused infrastructure and disrespected wands
The council’s response? A cut-and-paste paragraph about Highway Code rule 243, repeated 25 times.
Conclusion: Stop the Scheme, Scrap the Wands
Active travel deserves better than this. So does Birkenhead.
The Duke Street scheme as approved:
Undermines visual heritage
Ignores current accessibility guidance
Lacks public mandate
Prioritises tokenistic compliance over meaningful infrastructure
Let’s be clear: wand orcas are a sticking plaster, not a solution. If Wirral wants to be taken seriously on regeneration and sustainability, it must pause this scheme, review it against updated legal and design frameworks, and come back with a design that’s fit for purpose.
Bin the bollards. Build something beautiful instead.
Disclaimer
All views expressed in this post are my own. Data and sources have been drawn from public council documents, government policy, and academic studies, and are linked throughout the article. If any factual errors are found, I welcome corrections and will amend accordingly. This post does not represent the views of any organisations or clients I work with. It is written in a personal capacity as part of ongoing civic engagement with local policy and planning issues.
Comments