|
 |
This is where I have a beef about odd and occasionally unsafe, thoughtless, stupid, and unprofessional actions and attitudes that I come across from day to day.
I can't give anyone aggrieved by this an immediate response far less an editorial role but, as we are all liable to error, I will put in brief notes of dissent if they are reasoned, decent and of wider interest.
If I am wrong or unfair in my judgements then I will grovel
For matters unrelated to play and associated issues see Miscellaneous Matters below.
1. In a fit of corporate irrationality a local authority took out of use their entire stock of the Kompan Galaxy Supernova which, apart from the superb 'birds nest' or cradle swing is the best bit of DDA compliant and accessible kit produced in the last ten years.
Shortly after face saving exercises were under way to see if use could be renewed without admitting error - nothing really changes in some quarters.
2. DDA contravention on a new site
Someone installed a Kompan multi sports area which has permanently fixed bars across all four pedestrian entrances at waist level - so what you say fit kids will duck under them or vault over - but what about somebody in a wheel chair who fancies some basket ball practice ? - its this sort of design that gets noticed!
3. Solar gain
A Sutcliffe Play multi play unit has been installed with the slide chute pointing ssw - I don't know who installed it but its not smart as I said in the post installation report!
4. Safety surfacing
In yet another recent PII I found the whole area covered with perforated composition material of only 20mm nominal thickness - alarm bells rang because the fall height was 3 metres in one case and so I offered the same warning as I now offer you dear reader.
Get suppliers to state and to guarantee HIC value in relation to stated fall heights relevant to apparatus on site or on order
5. In August 2008 I inspected a site in Nottingham where the wet pour was only 11mms thick - decoration not protection I'm afraid and likely to be short lived at that!
There is only one local authority that i know of that requires on site HIC testing and that is the city of Detroit - USA - don't be tempted to buy some 'indicative' compliance testing - get a guarantee from the company - it costs nowt and you can usually rely upon it
6. Installation problems
In a belated PII done while undertaking eight annual playground inspections for a community council I found what?
Why nothing more than a variant on the ubiquitous multi play/play systems made up largely of tubular sections, tyres, chains and ropes.
Many play companies have them - Kompan - Proludic - Wicksteeds etc but in this case it was Record Play I don’t know who installed it but does that matter anyway. it did not meet BS requirements in numbers of minor respects but the installation was fundamentally flawed
When play equipment is installed with loose fill safety surfaces then it invariably needs extra long ground fixing sections - this should be specified at contract time.
on adverse sloping sites even more so!
In this case, to make the thing work at all on a steep bank, the concrete foundation had to be piled and rose like a straddle stone out of the bark!
Somebody will have to sort it – BS EN 1176 -1-6.1 and 6.2 with figure 20 give clear instructions to all concerned.
Free advice
If it doesn't work too well up and down the hill try mounting it across the slope or better still take out a section of bank, grade it and use different surfacing!.
At last resort build a wall a metre high on the low side, back fill with bark and add a ramp for access - expensive and odd but it would work.
Update - the company relocated the item across rather than on the hill and this fixed the problem
7. The cradle, 'birds nest' or basket style accessible swing is now a popular feature in playgrounds but note it needs a minimum of 400mms clearance to meet BS requirements - I have visited sites recently - post installation certified OK but where the swing sat too low - be ashamed!
Update - RoSPA - one of the certifying agencies now state that in the case where they got it wrong the clearance at the time of their inspection was exactly 40cms and that the thing has stretched by 40mm in use giving a clearance of only 360mm - plainly a role as a comedy writer has been neglected here!
Proludic have since confirmed that they specify a clearance of 420mm for their 'pod' swings - sensible!
Second update on birdnests
I did a post PII (my first annual after a PII) in Gloucestershire yesterday - May 26th - and found a whole number of funny things.
Would anyone believe it there's a Huck birdnest 30cms clearance and a spring see saw that was literally falling apart!
I wonder sometimes who is out there doing these things
8. In yet another post installation inspection yet another company – SMP kit this time - made a nonsense of the assembly of one piece of play apparatus and so created five BS fails. three head traps and two loose fasteners
9. In September 2008 I inspected a new multi play with rope access fixed to a bar 3m high. Unfortunately the fastening lug section was replicated on the other side of the bar and so created a finger trap. Unlabeled item so I don't know who to blame
10. October 2009 : In a PII I found that a series of panels including a climbing wall fitted to a frame created finger traps - they were either too close together or too far apart but the 8mm rod slipped neatly between them and the 25mm couldn't, now someone has to remove and then refix them
11. I have been known to preach against 'self build' but recently, July 2009, conducted a PII on just such a set up. Of course it didn't meet standards but this was because a 'safety officer' caused it to be modified and so created two head traps.
12. The new British Standard relating to play equipment appears to complain that children with specific disabilities might have to be tolerated in playgrounds and goes on to speculate on the liklihood of some strangling on their protective helmet straps - see NEWS for details
13. And now with trepidation, I bitch about the Health & Safety Executive.
Since, in 2002, it published figures relating to deaths in playgrounds the numbers have been endlessly quoted to show how safe play can be - but they are wrong and do not get corrected! I know this because the numbers aren't collected and high or low cannot possibly stay the same year after year anyway.
Lies damned lies and statistics as Lord Beaconsfield so rightly said
14. I attended a Play England safety conference in Birmingham and while it was good it was not all good. I remain sceptical about the putative relevance of Tomlinson V Congleton in connection with play.
John Tomlinson was 18 and so not a child, there was neither playground, play equipment or safety surfaces associated with this case, no British standard applies and the judges were at pains to emphasise the special status of children and some others in their recognition of social benefits arising from toleration of risk.
Go to NEWS for a much more comprehensive critique of this situation
The application of more flexible interpretations of standards in woodlands and in nature parks I consider valid if not entirely convincing
What does all of this show then?
Well it demonstrates the need to have a PII done by an independent inspector - not one of the good old boys that would approve anything and also that these days play kit is built to too tight margins which necessarily introduces the possibility of error.
Additionally don't believe everything that you hear!
In any case if you are planning to install some new kit think about these reports
15. I was asked to do a risk assessment recently and found a full size goal post, no nets, installed just 3m 35cms from a reserved children’s play area. Perhaps toleration of risk is catching on.
16, Teachers never retire and I am irritated at the use of apostrophes as in 'play area’s' when no claimed possessive status is otherwise evident. Green grocers’ banana’s is considered amusing but, no disrespect to green grocers, these people are professionals!
Don't bother to look for the web site since I've advised the inspection company of the error and change appears to be imminent.
17. Would anyone believe it but at the annual PLAYFAIR held at Stoneleigh June 22nd and 23rd 2009 - where the great and the good gather to look at and sell play equipment - a girl fell off a play item and apparently broke her arm. Awful for the child of course but in line with government policy of tolerance of risk - 'Safe as necessary' as somebody repeatedly says 'Not as safe as possible'
Well its a point of view
18. In July 2009 I revisited a site with a cable runway, aerial flight, with inadequate safety surfacing. The installers insisted that this modest strip along the centre of the track was BS conformant - They are wrong - there must be a full 2 metre safety surface to each side. At the moment there is a bare earth strip approximately four metres wide which in baking hot or freezing cold weather will provide all of the protection of a concrete path - Great.
19. I recently completd a post installation inspection on a small village hall site in Gloucestershire, Nice kit, well installed, BS compliant but they had installed a self binding gravel path within standard retaining boards. This stuff binds over time but should be wide to spread wear and load and 'feathered' to avoid trip points at the edges -no matter how hard you roll it the children will still play with it and carry it on their shoe soles to cause abrasive wear to the kit, the polished hall floor and home furnishings - not wise!
Uncharacteristically let me now applaud the installers in Birmingham who set up a new play unit with fun feature panels incorporating a pirate map - they orientated the thing so that the compass bearing was actually dead on magnetic north - good job fellers or did you just get lucky?
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
In case it should be thought that our interest is solely in play areas I take this opportunity of calling to attention the policy statement issued by Eden District Council in June 2007.
'An Accessible and Inclusive Environment' is a lengthy and comprehensive statement of policy apparently comprehensive and in line with current legislation and government policy - but it doesn't mention the 2005 Act.
Perhaps news of change has not yet reached Penrith!
Seriously this might in effect be true because they refer to full implementation of the 1995 Act as though 2004 lies in the future and refer to the Disability Rights Commission as though it was still in place as a lead agency.
WATERLOGGING
I came across a case recently of a man offering to assess the problems of a waterlogged field for a fee of £500. See below my take on the issue and its free!
After a wet autumn and damp spring playing field operators, especially those in communities with heavy clay soils and numbers of active football teams, receive regular complaints concerning the state of the pitches. Often the complaint is not so much of an overall water-logged state but pools appearing and refusing to disappear in particular parts of a pitch, especially the goal mouths and other areas of heavy wear. To a lesser degree the same conditions and considerations apply to grassed play areas especially under climbing frames, swings and slides where compaction occurs.
When, taking one year with another, there has been no prolonged history of water-logging then attention must be directed towards recent events and their causal link to the problem. First, and most obviously, it seems likely that, regardless of wet conditions, the field has been played on, the grass worn off, the surface puddled and compacted and so standing water has inevitably appeared. If players can't be persuaded to stay off the wet ground until it has the chance to drain, the solution is to move the goal posts and spread/relocate the compaction and wear to less damaged surfaces. Less obviously but more seriously, there is a possibility of problems having developed or being created in the local land drainage system. In this case attention should be immediately directed to the possibility of redirected surface water from new roads, neighbouring fields, damaged water mains or main drains entering and overloading the land drains around the field. The state and contents of the ditches that carry away the field's surface water should be immediately checked.
If, from whatever cause - heavy lorries driving over the site, perhaps - a break or blockage has occurred in a land drain, the effect is that when the ground is saturated and the pipe full throughout its effective length then water is forced up to the surface at particular points. This often gives an indication as to the location of the blockage. If this possibility is anticipated, then rodding the land drains might have an immediately beneficial effect. At the same time some further investigation should take place in the drainage ditch areas since, through earthworks, road works, house building, hedge removal or any other land-disturbing activity in the area field drainage can be upset. Self-help in these cases is worth trying before embarking on expensive surveys and remedial work through contractors.
If no change in circumstances, silt blockage or drain collapse can be found, then it must be accepted that, where a playing field has been heavily used but perhaps neglected over a number of years, then some evidence of compaction and standing surface water is all but inevitable. Probably the best long-term solution in this case is to buy in professional services to undertake verti draining which will break up excessive compaction. This is likely to cost between £I000 and £I500. A cheaper alternative would include spiking, slitting and top-dressing, all of which are well within the competence of local contractors who could advise on alternative or additional strategies and comparative costs.
For an intermediate and cheap solution to a problem produced merely by over-use, the individual areas would need to be forked up and removed by hand to a depth of at least twenty inches, the area refilled with fresh soil and a thick fresh turf well compacted into the space.
FEEDBACK AND COMPLAINTS
Feedback 1
I am described as a 'sad man who should get out more' because I took a compass reading on the play equipment. Tough!
I always do this because current and previous standards require it and if your PII inspector doesn't do it then you are being short changed.
Feedback 2
It has been pointed out that contractors sometimes install company play items other than as intended - I have made some alterations and from now on I'll check who did the installation before complaining and 'naming names' - thanks for the advice anyway
While waiting for more of these to arrive let me explain the HIC references above.
HIC - is a measure of the severity of the potential head injury arising from a series of contrived and recorded impacts from a variety of heights onto impact absorbing materials.
BSEN 1177, on the basis of statistical analysis and findings, and in recognition of the severity of head injuries, sets a Head Injury Criterion (HIC) at a tolerance level of 1,000.
Additionally, the standard provides a test method for testing any and all surfacing materials approved for use in the impact area of any playground
Test methods appropriate to laboratory or ‘on site’ conditions have been agreed but since the use of the required triaxial and uniaxial accelerometers, test rigs and guidance systems are limited in relation both to availability, reliability and cost such procedures are permitted but are generally judged inappropriate for use in the routine cycle of inspections and are seldom justified or wholly persuasive on other occasions.
Where such methods are adopted in part, hand held and without spotting towers or rigs, they are at best indicative only and cannot substitute for certification which is provided for under standard protocols.
There is no practical means of providing on site verification of the resistance to abrasive wear, slip resistance, resistance to indentation and ease of ignition which form a part of the BS 7188 requirements nor can the tensile strength and durability of materials be tested.
BSEN 1177 states that ‘The suppliers of a playground surfacing shall provide instruction in relation to the correct installation, maintenance and inspection procedures.’ Additionally verifiable information shall be provided for its identification and performance.
The test results of reputable test houses can be relied upon in cases where the declared HIC value in relation to the material and to fall heights relate to the actual situation on site and form a part of the contract
May 27th 2010
|
|
|
