News

Youngsters on the trampoline provided by Coleen King , who has been told to remove it from the communal garden in Owlsmoor
advertisement

Bracknell Forest Homes tells mum 'play equipment must go'

By Hugh Fort
August 09, 2012

A mum who forked out for play equipment for a communal garden has been told she must remove it as the area is ‘not for playing in’.

Coleen King, 25, spent more than £700 buying swings and a trampoline to go in the fenced off area for residents of flats in Moor Close, Owlsmoor.

But Bracknell Forest Homes, which manages the area, fears a child could be injured by the equipment and has told her no play equipment should be left out permanently for health and safety reasons.

Miss King is furious and claims she will have to get rid of it as her flat is too small to keep it inside.

She said: “I think it’s really unfair. I’ve paid for it and put it up.It’s not just for my kids, they can all use it and they do. They love it.”

The mum-of-three girls has started a petition gathering support from other families living in the close and says she will fight the decision.

In the letter Bracknell Forest Homes told residents of the flats ‘whilst the area is for the use of all residents in Moor Close, the intention is for the area to be used as a ‘quiet area’ for residents to sit in’.

The letter also says the large trampoline must be ‘moved immediately’ and should not be left permanently installed due to health and safety.

Miss King said: “Bracknell Forest Homes is talking about it being a quiet area and health and safety problems but we’ve never had anything. The trampoline is spring-free so it’s not dangerous. I paid for the spring-free as I felt it was a safer but they still don’t like it.

“They’ve got similar things in the other flats which people have got so why can’t we have ours?

“I’ve spent a lot to do what I thought was a nice thing for all the kids around here and now they’re saying to get rid of it.” She added: “I can’t keep swings and a trampoline inside a flat so they’ll go if we can’t keep them here.”

Moor Close residents have also been asked to ensure no dog fouling occurs in the area. Linda Wells, housing and community services director, said: “We appreciate that it is sometimes a challenge to keep children occupied during the school holidays and for this reason we provide a range of children’s activities such as sports and fun camps and trips to the beach through our community investment programme.

“This play equipment was erected without our permission in a communal area which can be used by members of the public. The equipment does not meet the standards required for public use and we are concerned that a child could be injured, particularly as the equipment is left unsupervised at times.

“We do consider requests for one-off events, such as birthday parties or a communal barbecue, where safety considerations have been taken into account and insurance is in place.

“Owlsmoor and Sandhurst do have some very nice recreation areas for families to enjoy in safety and we would encourage residents to use these areas.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (15)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 15

It would seem that Bracknell Homes have it wrong about health and safety:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/record/2012/bracknellforeststandard100812.htm Dear Sir

Standard readers can be reassured there are no health and safety 'rules' that govern play equipment in gardens. (Bracknell Forest Homes tells mum 'play equipment must go', 8 August 2012 ). To state otherwise is both inaccurate and misleading.

Bracknell Forest Homes should have made clear in their statement that it wanted the play equipment removed for insurance and liability reasons, not health and safety. It is important to be clear about what the law does and doesn't require - it's too easy to blame 'elf 'n' safety' when something is 'banned' for other reasons.

Health and safety laws exist to protect workers and others from death, serious injury and ill health at work, not to ruin children's playtime.

Yours faithfully

Mike Wilcock Head of Operations for the South East Health & Safety Executive

Bracknell Lib Dems
05/04/2013 at 23:24

As this is a "communal" garden you would have thought she would have asked people first instead of now getting up a petition.

I am sure that a child could be injured by the equipment as it would not be designed for intensive public use.

I can quite see why this play equipment should not be left out permanently for health and safety reasons. Why people then grab on the words to mean health and safety at work I don;t understand.

Why the mention of the Council? This area is owned by a Housing Association, and they are looking after everyones best interests.

Crimson Dawn, Bracknell
27/08/2012 at 17:17

Actually there are no health and safety laws covering this. Health and sfaty law is for protecting workers form danger at work. That's just an excuse the council are using to deflect the blame. It's probably more about protecting them from being sued because they are not insured for it.

Elf
20/08/2012 at 17:34

eh? But Health and Safety IS particularly inflexible Megaman ;¬)

Timothy Jefferies
14/08/2012 at 17:21

It must be very annoying for this poor woman to fork out for this stuff out of the goodness of her heart only to be caught up in beauracracy and red tape.

Health and safety law seems particularly inflexible and lacking in any aspect of common sense.

Megaman
13/08/2012 at 12:11

" play at your own risk signs" are hardly appropriate for the young children using play equipment like this. Neither can parents be expected to continuously monitor what is after all a communal garden where children should be able to play safely.

PoneRana, Wokingham
11/08/2012 at 10:27

That is sadly true LarryS, in this "no blame no claim" world we live in... Luckily, I have the Batcave to play in ;)

Bruce Wayne
09/08/2012 at 16:36

Hi Brad.

Winstanley, Winchester House
09/08/2012 at 16:09

Yes but folk these days don't accept that do they? It's always someone else's fault, never their own. They need a scapegoat - blame the council, sue the council - what they don't realise is that it's their money that's being wasted. The council's money is THEIR money. If the council are sued, the council have less money to provide facilities for the likes of you and me, Mr Batman.

LarryS
09/08/2012 at 15:20

Whilst I feel very sorry for the family - it’s a communal garden, she didn’t ask permission, so assume she didn’t seek approval from the other neighbours ..... Sorry if that sounds harsh but it’s the reality of the situation. I know the equipment is not for public use, but that’s hardly the point! The picture also shows the trampoline is ENORMOUS! If I shared the garden I would be very annoyed ... unless off course she is letting all her neighbours use it whenever they want ... at their own risk of course!

One of my neighbours lives in a flat that overlooks a plot of land she doesn’t own - she wants to put up a run for her guinea pigs - I assume that there is no problem with that??

Tom Edwards, Bracknell
09/08/2012 at 15:16

Of course it is... This 'problem' is solved by a simple "users play at their own risk" sign.

Bruce Wayne
09/08/2012 at 14:37

'Why does every accident always have to result in someone getting sued? Bruce Wayne'

Because its always someone else's fault!

Seriously though, why on earth did this lady not speak to the council first? She must have realised it was not like having your own back garden.

LarryS
09/08/2012 at 14:33

Why does every accident always have to result in someone getting sued?

Bruce Wayne
09/08/2012 at 13:23

If there is an accident and someone is badly injured who will be sued? The council has already indicated that it does not want the responsibility for equipment that does not meet the standards for public use. I hope Miss King has taken out appropriate insurance.

PoneRana, Wokingham
09/08/2012 at 12:41

Absolutely ridiculous. This country and it's health & safety laws are so pathetic it's unreal! They claim to want kids to be active, then stuff like this happens?! I hope Coleen wins her battle, not that there should be one in the first place! If anything, they should be thanking her and re-imbursing the £700!