River Safety Management
at Wharfemeadows Park,
Otley
Scrutiny Inquiry Report
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – scrutiny.unit@leeds.gov.uk
1
Introduction and Scope
Introduction 3. An element of this latter approval resulted in the Executive Board 1. Following the tragic drowning of agreeing to erect a fence around two young men at Roundhay Park an expanse of water in in 2005 an interdepartmental Wharfemeadows Park, Otley. group was established to address the issues raised by the incident. 4. It is well known that this element The group was formed to deal of the Executive Board decision of with: February 2007 prompted local protests. • Preparation for the Coroner’s Inquest 5. A group was formed, known as • Implementation of any the Wharfemeadows Action recommendations from the Group, (WAG) to oppose the Inquest plans. This group submitted a th • Commissioning of a RoSPA deputation to full Council (18 report on Water Health and April 2007) and was also involved Safety in Leeds City Council in discussions with the relevant Development of a programme Area Committee. of risk assessments for Council water areas 6. There was also public discussion • Development of a Water Health suggesting that the Executive and Safety Policy for the City Board’s decision was in some way Council legally flawed. • Development of educational information on water safety, 7. In response to the concerns particularly for adolescents and raised the Council sought legal teenagers reassurances that the decision it had taken was correct and agreed 2. On 9 th February 2007 Executive to revisit the decision taking into Board approved and adopted a account local views.
Policy on the Safety Management th of Open Water, endorsed the 8. In 16 May 2007 the Executive ‘Wise up to Water’ Lifesaving Board received a further report Water Safety Project for young outlining the need for water safety people and approved provision measures at Wharfemeadows within the Capital Programme to Park, Manor Park and Tittybottle ensure that the result of the Park. remaining risk assessments could be implemented 9. The Executive Board, subsequently on consideration of this May report resolved that
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
2
Introduction and Scope
consideration of proposals to Scope improve water safety at Wharfemeadows Park, Manor 13. The terms of reference for this Park and Tittybotle Park be Inquiry were agreed by the deferred to the June meeting of Scrutiny Board at its September the Executive Board, excepting 2007 meeting. The Scrutiny that the Chief Recreation Officer Board agreed to scrutinise the be requested to progress fencing recent decisions of the Executive proposals by the river in the Board regarding Wharfemeadows, vicinities of the weir and the the grounds for those decisions, children’s play area. the advice submitted and to make recommendations thereon the 10. On 13 th June 2007 the Executive following: Board received further reports. These included the presentation • The consultation process of the May report identifying the undertaken with regard to water need for water safety at safety at Wharfemeadows Park. Wharfemeadows and details of th public meetings held on 10 May • Details of the decision making 2007 and exhibitions between 8 th process, the options and 11 th June 2007 in Otley considered, the advice received and position of the Council 11. Following consideration of these following RoSPA’s reports the Executive Board recommendations: resolved that the scheme to erect signage and to fence parts of the • Legal advice given to the parks adjacent to the River Council Wharfe as identified in the May 2007 report be implemented as • Executive Board reports soon as was practically possible. • RoSPA’s recommendations and 12. In July 2007 Scrutiny Board relevant reports (Culture and Leisure) received a request for scrutiny from the • Any risk assessments Wharfemeadows Action Group undertaken previously with relating to the proposed fencing regard to sites with water assets arrangements within Wharfemeadows Park. Following • Relevant statistics on accidents a full presentation by WAG the relating to the River Wharfe and Scrutiny Board agreed to Wharfemeadows Park undertake a Scrutiny Inquiry. specifically.
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
3
Introduction and Scope
• Coroner’s report relating to Roundhay Park fatal incident
• The Water Safety Strategy
14 This Inquiry has tended to focus on Wharfemeadows and has not dealt with in any great detail the wider Water Safety Strategy. This report presents the findings of the Scrutiny Board.
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
4
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
1. We feel it is important at the out the Council’s responsibilities was set to acknowledge the genuine created. public concern the decision to fence off parts of the river has 5. Much has also been said of the raised in some quarters. We Executive Board being under acknowledge the hard work of pressure to act as it did due to the WAG in being a conduit for that ‘threat’ of possible ‘Corporate feeling. We would like to thank manslaughter’ prosecutions WAG representatives for the manner in which they have 6. Similarly there has been confusion presented its evidence to us and as to the Coroner’s are grateful for the timely recommendations following the production of written reports and Roundhay Park tragedy. It has other pieces of evidence all of been widely reported in the media which we have found extremely and said in Full Council that the useful. Council received an instruction to carry out risk assessments. 2. Similarly we acknowledge the input of officers and thank 7. It is the view of WAG that the representatives from RoSPA for advice given to the Executive their professional input. We Board that not to heed the safety would like to say at this point that advice in RoSPA’s report and the Members who attended our site Roundhay Coroner’s report could visit were extremely impressed result in corporate manslaughter with Wharfemeadows Park and charges was incorrect and should we would like to record our thanks not have been given. This advice, and congratulations to Parks and together with the inaccurate legal Countryside staff. advice, WAG argues, played a significant role in colouring the 3. WAG argues that the decision in views of the Executive Board February 2007 to put up fencing Members. was based on (to quote WAG) the “fundamentally flawed RoSPA 8. It is true that the December 2006 December 2006” report. RoSPA report quotes a case (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough 4. WAG argues that the legal advice Council) and in quoting this case underpinning this report was does not fully explain the wrong and was either ignored or subsequent successful appeal. accepted by various officers. This is unfortunate and Members WAG argues that when this can sympathise with the view that advice was presented to the it puts RoSPA's competence to Executive Board a false picture of advise on safety matters on trial.
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
5
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
incorrect and no evidence has 9. It is unfortunate that the original been presented to the Working error by RoSPA was not picked up Group or Scrutiny Board to by officers. However it is suggest otherwise. We note that important to state that we have the correct recommendation of the been advised by our own legal Coroner was presented in the department that the decision in February 2007 Executive Board the Tomlinson Case does not report. define Leeds City Council’s duty of care and that it was not a 12. What is unfortunate is that the consideration when determining Council at the point of the the Council’s responsibilities and February 2007 Executive Board certainly did not form part of any decision had not carried out its officer advice to the Executive own risk assessment at Board. This is reinforced by the Wharfemeadows and was reliant fact that RoSPA were not on RoSPA's assessment. With commissioned by the Council to the subsequent criticism of offer legal advice nor has legal RoSPA it is understandable why advice been sought by the Council WAG has suggested that the City from RoSPA. Council misled itself. However we do acknowledge that the risks 10. In terms of officers advising identified by RoSPA were not Executive Board that not to heed unknown to officers. Indeed it the advice of RoSPA could result was officers from Parks and in Corporate Manslaughter Countryside who had suggested charges, we cannot find evidence the site, visited with RoSPA and to support that this advice was gave input into the site actually given. We are told by discussions that formed the risk officers that this was not a matter assessment report. It is raised in the February 2007 acceptable to use experts and we Executive Board report. However acknowledge that this was not at we accept that some of this the expense of abdicating discussion could have been responsibility and accountability fuelled by discussion in full for decisions made. Council in February 2007 where Members talked of the possible 13. In hindsight it would have been threat as justification for the better to have incorporated Executive Board decision. RoSPA’s advice into our own risk assessment. This would have 11. In terms of the supposed also helped play down RoSPA’s recommendations made by the perceived influence in the decision Roundhay Coroner, again this is making process.
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
6
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
was done by Council officers on . 30 th March 2007 and reported to a 14. WAG has also questioned the further Executive Board report in legitimacy of appointing RoSPA to May 2007. We also note that in help the Authority undertake risk giving evidence to the Scrutiny assessments. We have heard of Board, the RoSPA representative the expertise RoSPA can provide stated that he was unhappy with in these areas and therefore do elements of the December 2006 not have an issue with RoSPA RoSPA report and that changes assisting the Council. We say this were subsequently made, however on the clear resulting in the April 2007 RoSPA understanding that risk report. This was the report the assessments and consequent City Council finally acted on. decisions and action lies solely However, we note with some with the Council and not RoSPA. concern that the existence of The Council are the responsible different ‘versions’ of the RoSPA body, not RoSPA. We accept report would appear to have that officers have never stated confused the decision making that RoSPA have a regulatory process. responsibility. It is unfortunate that the subsequent message was 17. We note that following this report that RoSPA told the City Council and the subsequent June 2007 to erect the fencing. In our view report Members reaffirmed their more could have been done to February 2007 decision with some challenge this perception. modifications. These being;
15. WAG has also queried the • Not to fence near the steps decision to Commission RoSPA to • Not to fence from children’s examine Wharfemeadows Park. playground down to the white In this regard we are satisfied that bridge this area of water had been of concern to officers and provided a 18. We acknowledge that as a local good example of an urban park authority, addressing matters of area with fast running water to public safety is one of our key undertake a site specific responsibilities - but doing so 'as assessment. far is reasonably practicable' and applying the principles of ‘sensible 16 Not withstanding our comment in risk management' paragraph 12 above, we have been advised that it is legally 19. It is fair to say that there is often perfectly proper to revisit risk little ‘objective science’ in assessments. We note that this conducting risk assessments for
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
7
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
situations such as this. As they • Creating a totally risk free are often based upon professional society judgement. The law requires that • Generating useless paperwork ‘competent people’ are utilised to mountains inform such assessments – which • Scaring people by exaggerating is why the Council employed or publicising trivial risks RoSPA and utilised its own • Stopping important recreational Officers. Only a court can and learning activities for ultimately decide on liability if an individuals where the risks are accident has occurred. managed • Reducing protection of people 20. We share the Health and Safety from risks that cause real harm Executive’s view sensible risk and suffering. management is about:
• Ensuring that workers and the 22. WAG and others, including certain public are properly protected; Members of this Scrutiny Board, • Providing overall benefit to believe that the decision taken to society by balancing benefits fence off parts of the River Wharfe and risks, with a focus on are not proportionate to the risk reducing real risks – both those nor to any legal imperative. which arise more often and Conversely we have heard from those with serious our own professional and consequences ; experienced officers and from • Enabling innovation and RoSPA that the measures are learning not stifling them; sound and legitimately arise from • Ensuring that those who create our legal obligation to carry out a risks manage them responsibly risk assessment and address the and understand that failure to risks identified in such manage real risks responsibly is assessments as far as reasonably likely to lead to robust action; practical. • Enabling individuals to understand that as well as the 23. There is a view that the relatively right to protection, they also short stretch of fencing of the have to exercise responsibility River Wharfe at Wharfemeadows • Reducing not eliminating risk. in Otley does not prevent or restrict activities as these areas 21. We would strongly argue that are not legitimate points of sensible risk management is not access. The steps, which are a about: point of access and used for feeding water foul and an integral
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
8
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
feature of the park, are to be left far as we are concerned is to unfenced. satisfy ourselves that the Executive Board made its decision 24. The only non financial ‘cost’ put with all necessary, available and forward in the fenced areas is one accurate information before it. of visual amenity, which in any case is subjective. This would not 28. For the sake of clarity we asked provide any useful mitigation for an officer summary of the should an accident occur . Coroners inquest report and all legal advice in terms of the 25. We concede however that we are Council’s liability including unlikely to reach a consensus Counsel’s advice. We believe the neither within the Scrutiny Board clearest explanation of the legal nor within the public at large, as to advice can be found in Appendix 5 whether the fencing should have of the May 2007 Executive report. been erected. There are those This properly summarised who oppose all fencing, those who Counsel’s advice. We appended agree fully and there are those this advice in full. who argue that the fencing should be around a limited identified 29. We have also seen copies of the area. It has to be said that risk assessments for following our own site visit Wharfemeadows although we Members present identified areas concede that we are not that required urgent fencing. competent as a Scrutiny Board to professionally comment on these. 26. We have quite rightly listened to what WAG has had to say. 30. On all accounts faced with the However we could have easily legal advice and the evidence obtained the views of the many from the risk assessments, the people who are supportive of the Executive Board made the measures taken by the Council. decision it did in all good faith with Indeed when Members went on a all available and appropriate recent site visit as part of this information before it. Inquiry we were privy to numerous comments of support for the 31. We do not therefore concur with fence. We note that the Executive WAG’s proposition that the Board has also seen letters of Executive Board was somehow support. misled into making this decision either through inaccurate legal 27. Our job has not been to arbitrate advice or bogus threats of on a professional health and potential manslaughter charges safety issue. The issue at point as
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
9
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
and non recommendations from understandably angered about the the Coroner. lack of consultation.
32. Having said that there does 36. Councillor Spencer states that the remain two areas of concern first official contact he received on which we would wish to comment the matter was 7 th February 2007. on. The first is that of consultation This is two days before the and the manner in which this Executive Board meeting of 9 th whole issue has been handled. February 2007 and after the The second relates to Executive Board papers were in transparency of decision making. the public domain.
33. With regards to consultation, we 37. Councillor Spencer goes on to say have received written evidence that it was not until 10 th May 2007 from Councillor Jim Spencer, that a public meeting on the City Leader of Otley Town Council and Council’s decision was held. This from Greg Mulholland MP for was despite the growing anger Leeds North West. Both within Otley on the lack of submissions clearly show a level consultation. of anger over how this matter has been handled. The Chair has also 38. Councillor Spencer told us that at met with the Leader of Otley Town this public meeting passions were Council. running very high. It is his view that as a consultation meeting it 34. Councillor Spencer talks of “shock was a “waste of time” and showed and surprise of the Town Council” a complete “lack of interest of the to find that the City Council had City in the opinion of the Town plans to “radically alter the look, Council and its community and aesthetics and impact of the also the strength of the feeling of park…and the City Council had the community”. not made contact with the Town Hall to consult or discuss the 39. A similar view was also expressed serious issues”. by Greg Mulholland MP, who has complained of a lack of 35. Councillor Spencer states that the consultation with the people of first the Town Council knew of any Otley and Otley Town Council proposals to fence of the river was both before the City Council took when he read an article in the 28 th its original decision and after. Mr December 2006 edition of the Mulholland claims that the Wharfedale & Airedale Observer. consultation was neither full nor The Town Council was proper nor was it genuine. By way of evidence for this view point
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
10
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
Mr Mulholland quoted extracts the Executive Board meeting on from correspondence between 13th June 2007. Councillor Spencer and senior City Council Councillors. 45. It is our view that more could have been done and sooner to inform 40. In his letter dated 10 th May 2007 to the residents of Leeds and of Councillor Jim Spencer, Councillor Otley, in particular, of the City Andrew Carter states, “we have Council’s intentions no intention of making a decision on the proposals for 46. We have been presented with little Wharfemeadows at the Executive evidence that there was a Board meeting next week (16 th concerted effort to win over May 2007). In actual fact, a ‘hearts and minds’ on this issue decision was taken to go ahead prior to February 2007. This is with part of the scheme following evidenced by the fact that Otley that meeting. Town Council heard of the City 41. Councillor Mark Harris in a letter council’s proposals via the local to Councillor Jim Spencer on 17 th media in December 2006. May 2007 states, “At the Executive Board yesterday, the 47. It is clear that in the minds of Leader of Council announced that Otley Town Council, the City we would continue the immediate Council has totally disregarded fencing of the river adjacent to the not just its views on the fence but weir and the children’s also its legitimate right to be playground” consulted in a timely and appropriate manner - which is 42. That to us confirms that a decision perhaps more worrying. was made during a period when other consultation was supposed 48. It is Councillor Spencer’s view that to be taking place. given the content of the final fencing scheme many of the initial 43. Councillor Harris’s letter of 17 th worries expressed by the town May 2007 also states “Everything have now been addressed. else is still the subject of However these could have been consultation with the people of resolved prior to the original Otley”. February 2007 Executive Board decision had early dialogue taken 44. We noted that further consultation place. Instead a situation was did take place between 8th to 11th allowed to develop and gain a June in the form of exhibitions momentum all of its own resulting prior to the final decision taken at in frustration and mistrust.
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
11
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
49. We would draw the Executive Council’s dealing with the public Board’s attention to the ‘Charter on this matter. It would appear between Leeds City Council and from the legal advice given that in the Parish and Town Councils a situation where the safety of the within the administrative area of public is the overriding issue the Leeds City Council’, particularly City Council has a duty to act Section Three – Working in rather than consult. Therefore Partnership. This was agreed by any “consultation” must be limited. the Executive Board in October 2006. 53. Furthermore, on those limited occasions where discussions did 50. Section 3.4 of this Charter states; take place there appears to have “Consultation will be used to been some degree of false hope involve local councils in decisions given that “consultation” meant an of the City Council that affect local opportunity to amend the communities. Consultation Executive Board decision. between the partners of this Similarly we do not believe that Charter is a two-way process, some of the statements made by which can only be effective where some Executive Board Members there is a sense of partnership in correspondence shown us, to and mutual trust. Consultation will be helpful. In our mind these not be used as a form of advance statements perpetuated a notion warning or of public relations”. that consultation meant a possible We believe that the Council has influence over the final decision. fallen short on this undertaking. This was never the case.
51. The Charter also states that, 54. Consultation at best was about “Sometimes it will be necessary the type of fence to be erected for the City Council to take and to a certain degree the areas decisions based on considerations to be fenced. Indeed which extend beyond an individual consideration was given to an community. In these cases the alternative fence line running decisions may not reflect the local along the main park path from view, even though suggestions Bridge Street to Farnley Lane and and opinions will have been locking the park in times of spate considered. (paragraph 3.7) or flood. We were advised that on evaluation of the risk assessment 52. We fully acknowledge that this will this did not reduce the potential be the case on occasions. As hazard and risk rating of children such we have concerns regarding and young people slipping/tripping the use of the phrase from the embankment wall top into ‘consultation’ throughout the the river. In addition it was the
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
12
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
view of officers that predicting Section Three states “ Consultation will flood and spate situations was be used to involve local councils in difficult because the river has decisions of the City Council that affect substantial variances in flow and local communities. Consultation height. Of concern also was the between the partners of this Charter is fact that there are many entrances a two-way process, which can only be to the park and resources may not effective where there is a sense of be available at the right time to partnership and mutual trust.” implement physical actions on the ground. 57. The second area of concern was the initial decision by officers not 55. However it remained that the to make public the full legal decision to implement the results advice, including Counsel’s of the risk assessment was never opinion on this matter. up for debate. This should have been clear at the out set and more 58. It is our view that the core driver of effort spent on giving proper the Executive Board decision was reason for the decision. Again the Council’s legal duty of care early discussions with the Town once in receipt of a risk Council might have avoided the assessment and legal advice from tensions which arose in the officers. It is our view that, in the community. spirit of open and transparent decision making, this legal advice 56. The overriding lesson coming out should have been in the public of this is the need to ensure that domain at an early stage. the spirit of the agreed Charter is adhered to. There will be other 59. We are pleased therefore that the issues in the future facing the City Chief Executive has reviewed this and Town and Parish Council’s and has agreed that Counsel’s and there must not be a repeat of preliminary advice and this ill feeling. chronology of events can now be made public. Recommendation 1 60. However we would recommend That the Charter between Leeds City that as a matter of course all legal Council and the Parish and Town advice should be in the public Councils within the administrative area domain and withheld only under of Leeds City Council’, particularly exceptional circumstances. Section Three – Working in Partnership, is strictly adhered to.
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
13
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
Recommendation 2 requests for Counsel’s advice are made in written form save in That all legal advice obtained by the exceptional and urgent Council is publicly available save in circumstances. exceptional circumstances to be determined by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. The reasons for any non Recommendation 3 public disclosure should be made clear by the Monitoring Officer. That all requests for Counsel’s advice are made in written form save in exceptional and urgent circumstances. 61. We would also wish to comment on the recording of legal advice. When we requested to have sight of Counsel's written opinion and 63 Finally we would like to make a our own solicitors instruction, we general observation about the were initially informed that no role of Scrutiny in the Council’s such written advice existed. This decision making process. We would seem to have arisen due to are of the view that this is one a misunderstanding that what was instance where ‘pre Scrutiny’ of being requested was any formal a decision would have been written concluded opinion arising helpful and given the Executive from the initial oral advice given Board the opportunity to test by Counsel in conference with opinion. leading elected members. This turned out not to be the case and 64 We acknowledge that the onus subsequently written preliminary to identify decisions that would or informal advice was received benefit from such ‘pre scrutiny’ from Counsel and written does not rest solely with the instructions were given by Leeds Executive and is as much the City Council solicitors. We have responsibility of individual been offered an explanation as to Scrutiny Boards. We therefore how this misunderstanding recommend that both the occurred and in turn we have Executive and Scrutiny Boards expressed our frustrations of this work in partnership to identify experience at the highest level. those future decisions where Scrutiny input prior to the 62. Whilst not integral to our main decision being made can add findings we believe a future value to the overall process and occurrence of this would be the decision made. avoided if, as a matter of practice,
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
14
Conclusions & Re com mendation s
Recommendation 4
That the Executive Board and Scrutiny Boards work in partnership to identify future decisions where Scrutiny input prior to the decision being made can add value to the overall process and the decision made.
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
15
Evidence
Monitoring arrangements
Standard arrangements for monitoring the outcome of the Board’s recommendations will apply.
The decision-makers to whom the recommendations are addressed will be asked to submit a formal response to the recommendations, including an action plan and timetable, normally within two months.
Following this the Scrutiny Board will determine any further detailed monitoring, over and above the standard quarterly monitoring of all scrutiny recommendations.
Reports and Publications Submitted
1) RoSPA Report: Water Safety Audit – September 2005
2) RoSPA Report: Generic Water Safety Assessment – December 2006
3) RoSPA Report: Generic Water Safety Assessment (amended) – December 2006
4) Executive Board Report (Item 13) and Minutes – 9 February 2007
5) Executive Board Report (Item 19) and Minutes – 13 June 2007
6) Executive Board Report (Item 7) and Minutes – 16 May 2007
7) Executive Board Report (Item 20) and Minutes – 22 August 2007 8) Full Council: verbatim minutes – 21 February 2007 9) Full Council: Wharfemeadows Action Group (WAG) Deputation – 18 April 2007 10) Full Council: verbatim minutes – 20 June 2007 11) Wharfemeadows Action Group briefing paper – July 2007 12) Wharfemeadows Action Group supplementary evidence – August 2007 13) Wharfemeadows Action Group further evidence – November 2007 14) Wharfemeadows fencing proposals site plan – 19 January 2007 15) WAG’s Public Address to the Culture & Leisure Scrutiny Board – 16 July 2007 16) Notes arising from inquests (Head of Community Services and Litigation) – 22 June 2006 17) Wharfemeadows Park Fencing – Chronology (September 2007) 18) Note from Head of Community Services and Litigation (Leeds City Council) – 6 September 2007 19) Charter between Leeds City Council and Parish and Town Councils – revised October 2007 20) Counsel’s Advice and Chronology of Events – 3 October 2007 21) Note from Head of Community Services and Litigation (Leeds City Council) on Counsel’s Advice and Chronology of Events – 4 November 2007 22) Proposed draft findings/ recommendations from Cllr. Bernard Atha – 20 November 2007
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
16
Evidence
Reports and Publications Submitted (continued)
22) Correspondence from:
• Coroner’s Office – 3 July 2006; • Chief Recreation Officer (Leeds City Council) – 5 July 2006; • Leeds City Council’s Assistant Chief Executive (Corporate Governance) – 17 April 2007; • WAG/ Cllr. Andrew Carter (e-mail) – 25 April 2007; • WAG – 2 May 2007; • Ian Andrew (e-mail) – 10 June 2007 • Otley Town Council – 12 July 2007; • Greg Mulholland MP – 13 July 2007; • WAG (e-mail)– 25 August 2007; • WAG – 11 September 2007; • Head of Community Services and Litigation (e-mail) – 29 September 2007 • Head of Community Services and Litigation (Leeds City Council) / Assistant Chief Executive (Corporate Governance) (e-mail) – 5 October 2007; • WAG (e-mail)– 5 November 2007; • Otley Town Council (e-mail) – 23 November 2007; • Greg Mulholland MP – 23 November 2007;
• Clr. Ted Hanley – 30 November 2007;
• Clr. Ted Hanley – 4 December 2007;
• Greg Mulholland MP (e-mail) – 5 December 2007; • Clr. Ted Hanley – 12 December 2007.
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
17
Evidence
Witnesses Heard
• Wharfemeadows Action Group (WAG) • Cllr. John Procter (Leeds City Council Executive Board Member) • Cllr. Jim Spencer (Leader of Otley Town Council)
• Peter Cornall, Head of Water and Leisure Safety, ROSPA
• Paul Rogerson, Chief Executive – Leeds City Council
Denise Preston, Chief Recreation Officer – Leeds City Council • • Ian Spafford, Head of Community Services and Litigation – Leeds City Council • Chris Ingham, Human Resources Manager (Safety, Well-being and Attendance) – Leeds City Council • Sean Flesher, Parks and Countryside Principal Area Manager (West) – Leeds City Council
Dates of Scrutiny
• 16 July 2007 – Culture & Leisure Scrutiny Board • 15 August 2007 – working group meeting • 22 August 2007 – working group site visit (Wharfemeadows Park) • 29 August 2007 – working group meeting • 10 September 2007 – Culture & Leisure Scrutiny Board • 1 October 2007 – working group meeting • 8 October 2007 – Culture & Leisure Scrutiny Board • 5 November 2007 – working group meeting • 12 November 2007 – Culture & Leisure Scrutiny Board • 3 December 2007 – meeting between Leader of Otley Town Council and Chair of Culture & Leisure Scrutiny Board • 10 December 2007 – Culture & Leisure Scrutiny Board • 19 December 2007 – working group meeting
Scrutiny Board (Culture and Leisure) – Water Safety Management at Wharfemeadows Park, Otley - Inquiry Report - Published January 2008 – [email protected]
18