Safety a priority

More importantly, my letter was concerned with the council’s failure as a landlord to comply with its duty of care obligations when, in 2007, it had the results of two RoSPA risk assessments to hand. Both identified the dangers, especially when cricket was being played by the senior teams, because of the confined nature of the recreation ground.

They also highlighted the fact that there was always a risk of injury to those outside the ground, in particular to the children using the play area. By ignoring RoSPA’s recommendations to improve the level of protection and drastically reduce the number of cricket balls being hit out of the ground, the council showed its unwillingness to make the lives of children and others a priority.

The fact that the council took no action for four years, then commissioned a further report in 2011 for the same risk, leads to the perception that the council was seeking a different outcome and was happy to spend taxpayers’ money to achieve it., disingenuously stating in its response to my letter that ‘different inspectors may see things differently’.

The separate and more recent issue of residents requesting an independent risk assessment was to address their own particular concerns and was a constructive effort to reach a mutually agreed solution.

Unfortunately, the council wanted to pre-determine the outcome of the assessment by asking residents to agree to ‘terms of engagement’. The ‘terms’ would allow the council to avoid putting in place adequate protection, even if the safety survey considered it necessary.

Why would residents want to sign away their right to campaign for a safe environment? Residents do not have a problem with cricket being played on the recreation ground, but do expect the council, as landlord, to ensure that all activities do not interfere with or endanger those outside the ground.

Thomas Lemin

Sea Road

East Preston