SLDC top management - What a PR disaster

I have has been talking to Cllr Helen Irving.
Futhermore Jack Kelly has been explaining company procedures regarding safety and risk assessment. This has helped me understand what may be happening behind the scenes.

This page is devoted to understanding what is happening behind the decision by SLDC to remove the pottery from Mill Dam.

The conversation between Cllr Helen Irving and myself (Dr Geoff Dellow) last night was very revealing.

It is stated by Simon Rowley that  he ordered the removal of the pottery on the basis of 'councillors' and members of the public. We now know the councillors were Helen Irving and no other (in civil servant jargon the use of a plural means one or more). Members of the public were two people that went with their concerns to Helen as their councillor.

The latter were concerned about the sharp edges on the pottery that were on the pottery on the fence along the road footpath - not inside the park. They wanted to know what would happen if someone was injured. Cllr Helen Irving quite rightly then phoned SLDC and contacted someone who dealt with communications within SLDC (She is trying to remember the name). She then posed the question above, nothing more.

The very next thing that happened was that she received the letter that I received on Friday 28th June from Simon Rowley telling her that all the pottery was to be removed. This was done on Monday 1st by officers Wright and Maguire.

These officers were familiar to some extent with the pottery and had admired  it in the park at a meeting with me the previous Wednesday. At that time, they were very impressed with the work that our group , the BUGs, had been doing over the last four years consisting of planting bulbs, perennials and annuals; making picnic tables and having occasional days for everyone to improve their park. These a documented in the Facebook page for this established group of volunteers called The BUGs of Ulverston. As a result of their viewing of the park, they identified a number of potential safety issues - the pottery was not mentioned. These were the Seesaw, the outwardly opening gates, the stumps going back to the equipment installed by Playdale in the Eighties when I was involved in the use of the land (the Mill Dam) donated by Mr Woodburn of the Town Mill to the town as a playground. It was suggested that the last piece of equipment - the chain bridge - might need to be replaced.

This meeting was a very positive discussion between :the members of the BUGs - Geoff Dellow, Christine Atkinson, and Jack Kelly. Tracey Southward, representing Playdale. SLDC Officer Deborah Wright the newly appointed Community Spaces Officer and her boss Jim Maguire ( Wright has become Tony Naylor's boss - the person we had previously being dealing with who is in charge of all SLDC parks) (working for Tony Naylor is Peter Clarke the Parks Engineer who we have found the most helpful and is the person we have come to communicate with on a regular basis over all matters in the park - this includes our own activities , much needed repairs and matters of safety - eg the Seesaw, the gates and repairs to the picnic tables we installed at our own expense two years ago. Note : I have worked with SLDC as a representative of the  Lightburn group led by Tony Taylor, since 2009 when we cooperated in Lightburn Park. In 2011, at SLDC's request by the chief executive, Lawrence Conway, we formed the group called the BUGs to act as a group reponsible, amongst other things for activities in the Mill Dam. This group then reported it's activities through a Facebook page, communicated with its members by email and with the SLDC by email and phone.

I was in the park on Monday, solely as an observer of the pottery being removed. This was done by officers Wright, Maguire and an assistant. These officers requested to explain to me that they were very distressed at having been made to take the pottery down by their superiors. They were concerned about the safety of the pottery and had come to pack the pottery in bubble wrap, in strong boxes to be stored for collection in the Coro.They had had no prior warning that this was to happen, hearing about this after their meeting with us on Wednesday and had had no say in the decision. They assured me that they wished to continue working with our group in the future along the lines established at the Wednesday meeting (This cooperation is still place as established by email from Jim Maguire as he left for the weekend).

Who establishes what is and is not safe?
 This has to be the local authority. It is not the realm of Councillors or the public whose role is solely to raise concerns with the local authority. This is exactly what Cllr Helen Irving rightly did, she passed on concerns but did not make judgements.

The next stage for a company is to either assess the risk immediately or remove the hazard. SLDC decided on the latter.

What is the truth?
1. There has never been a complaint regarding the safety of the pottery on the fence inside the park  only on the fence outside (Cllr Irving)
2. The officers in charge of the park - Deborah Wright and Jim Maguire were never informed of any complaint
3. The officers who withdrew the pots did so against their wills and only because they were instructed to do so my their superiors
4. These are the officers have to bow to the procedures established by their local Authority - they do not have  the authority to decide what is and is not safe
5. An unknown officer made the decision that the pots inside the park might be dangerous to children and without a risk assessment followed the established procedure of removing them.
6. The suggestion that the BUGs did not have the authority to work in the park is undermined by the fact that it has been active for four years without problem. What did happen was that Lawrence Conway requested in 2011 that a responsible group be formed - this immediately happened with the formation of the BUGs with a membership of one pound - and carried on working, understanding that SLDC had the authority to demand changes at any time. No demand has been ever been received (the statement last Friday was a statement that they were taking action, not a demand to us) despite regular activity reported to SLDC before any activity took place. (emails to prove this).
7. SLDC have jumped into action in this case. Why has it ignored previous more serious complaints about the safety of the Seesaw which has already led to several serious accidents to children.
8. So, is it not reasonable to ask - Can we have a procedure so that a similar problem arises, it can be dealt with sensibly rather than wait with the result that that there is a PR disaster.

The action /decisions of SLDC in this case appear to be ridiculous until one understands just how unwieldy the present system is. In this case the general public will think Public Safety has gone mad.