www.playgroundinspection.co.uk

In connection with playground inspection four questions must be addressed

1. Why do we need to inspect play equipment?

2. How ofton must inspections take place?

3. Who can inspect play areas?

4. How much will it cost?

If you have further questions please go to:

www.access-audits.co.uk

www.rpii-inspector.co.uk

THE CONTACT INFORMATION BELOW IS STUBBORNLY WRONG AND IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT ME GO TO

johnhicks@playgroundinspection.co.uk

ALTERNATIVELY GO TO

johhicks@lineone.net

NOTE - We also provide training for inspectors and lay people - Routine and Operational standard - you will be amazed at how cheap we are. £350 PER DAY ! So how cheap is that when we can train up to 25 people at one time - that's less then £15 per head!

A new edition of THE PLAYGROUND INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL is now available from John Hicks @ £22: 50 but orders received before March will be delivered at a total cost of £20.

This handbook is aimed at all of those operational level inspectors currently listed on the Register of Playground Inspectors International (RPII) who might wish to consolidate their knowledge and experience and go on to complete the ‘Annual Inspectors’ examination. More significantly perhaps it provides a comprehensive training programme and source of reference for hundreds of people currently qualified as routine level inspectors who want to progress to operational level and many more considering RPII membership at the routine level. Finally it serves as a useful compendium and information source for councillors and officers who undertake daily or weekly inspections themselves or manage those who do.

There is no legal requirement placed upon site managers to provide or undertake regular inspections of play space and equipment, but prudence outweighs regulation in this case. Annual inspection by an independent inspector (or the client’s insurance company's own staff) is advised, and this should be backed up by a systematic and logged series of inspections throughout the year: These other inspections can be undertaken by people with a variety of skills and levels of competence and entirely unqualified but experienced lay people can carry out the routine inspections.

These measures:

· demonstrate an awareness of and concern for children's safety;
· ensure that problems are immediately recognised and remedied;
· enable routine maintenance and repairs to be readily undertaken; and
inform, monitor and assist in implementing risk assessment procedures.

For whatever reason some parish councils have been persuaded to have what amounts to two 'Annual' inspections annually - well if they can afford it that's fine but 'Best practice' is as outlined below.

Costs of inspections and related services vary enormously but this company has held charges at the same level for ten years and believe that while all RPII qulified inspectors are good nobody provides cheaper or better service than us.



PARISH DISTRICT and TOWN COUNCILS PLAYGROUNDS INSPECTION SERVICE

CHARGES 2011 and until 2013

Your Annual Inspection plus a Risk Assessment or Disability Access Audit and two Operational Inspections at quarterly intervals is offered at the bracketed price*

There are no additions for ‘Extras’, ‘Expenses’ ‘Travel’ or anything else
VAT @ 20% should be added in every case

Annual Inspection of playgrounds with less than five items £47 (£130)

Annual Inspection of playgrounds with five to ten items £57 (£150)

Annual Inspection of playgrounds with more than ten items £69 (£190)

Post installation inspections and accident investigation reports £250

Risk Assessments £25 (When carried through with an inspection, otherwise £50)

Access Audits £25 (When carried through with an inspection, otherwise £50)

When both risk assessments and access audits are done in conjunction with inspections the total additional fee is £40 otherwise the fee is £90.

Whole field inspections including equipment, risk assessments and access audit reports £150
BMX and other wheeled sports facilities £59

Councils renewing orders for inspections, risk assessments or audits will be given a discount of 10% on all of these charges.

Other Services and Charges

Access audits on halls, changing rooms, pavilions etc are charged on a time basis at £125 per half day


· Since risk assessments are required only every three years or so councils which subscribed to the package deal in 2009 or 2010 are advised to opt for the alternative of a Disability Access Audit or an estimate of the remaining useful life of apparatus with advice on prolonging safe usage


There are three required play area inspection regimes

1. Routine visual inspections which identify obvious hazards. They should be regularly undertaken, weekly perhaps or, where there is heavy usage and wear; or where vandalism is common, daily. Inspections should identify and record cleanliness, wear, rotting, corrosion, damage, safety surface condition, structural integrity, missing parts, broken parts and broken bottles etc. Changes arising from weather conditions should also be noted if evident and significant.

2. Operational inspections are more detailed than routine visual inspections and they should be conducted monthly, or at longer intervals subject to local conditions and suppliers’ advice. They incorporate all of the above procedures but in greater detail and from a better informed standpoint. Sealed for life parts are included and should receive special attention,

3. Annual main inspections are carried out by competent persons at intervals not exceeding 12 months and strictly within suppliers’ guidelines. The inspection is to determine the overall level of safety of equipment, foundations and surfaces. Inspectors note and record any evidence of wear, rotting, corrosion or damage as well as any change in the level of safety arising from repairs made as well as the addition or replacement of components. Specific note is made of safety surface condition, structural integrity, missing parts and broken parts. Sealed for life parts are included and should receive special attention,
This inspection might require excavation or dismantling of parts.

The owner or operator of playgrounds must establish and maintain an inspection schedule in respect of each playground which takes account of all local conditions relevant to the frequency of inspections, including weather, and conforms to manufacturer’s instructions
The schedule should list all components, procedures and agreed methodologies.
This should be periodically reviewed and modified according to observation, changed circumstances, experience or advice.

Defects or other safety issues identified in the inspections should be immediately addressed through repair, securing against use or removal. If for these or any other reasons items are removed or partially dismantled then the area should be made safe by the removal or safeguarding of any exposed footings, anchorages or fasteners.

All personnel involved in safety management, including inspection and maintenance, should be competent to undertake the tasks allocated and in particular cases such as welding parts they should additionally be qualified to undertake the work.

This company can undertake all of these inspection procedures and John Hicks recently published two guides relevant to these issues

The Playground Inspection and Maintenance Manual (Second edition) 2010 and

Wheeled sports - BMX Track Design and Management - An RPII Advisory Note

DISABILITY ACCESS AUDITS

Please visit www.access-audits.co.uk for a lengthy account of the company’s market leader position in this area of work as well as an account of our inspection, advisory and consultative roles





PLAYGROUND SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT

Well not quite but that’s the aim and the Play England Managing Risk in Play Provision events, 4th – 11th December 2008, were plainly welcome within this context but the issues and background are troubling and there is always the problem of defining terms.

The not totally well informed intervention of Lord Young of Graffham - Common Sense - Common Safety - October 2010 - in this connection is neither welcomed by professionals in the field nor justified by his oblique side swipes at an alleged compensation culture in this area.

1. Insurance companies remain mute on the topic.

2. RoSPA uges focussing on tackling injuries and ill health,

3. Everyone agrees that the absurd application of risk perception to all situations and consequent frivolous actions for damages should be discouraged. (See the note below)

But where does all of this weighty opinion leave the average play provider?

Risk is a measure of the chances of an identified hazard causing injury but neither scientific rigour nor mathematical precision generally identify it – its all down to observation and experience. Added to this there is the consideration that statistical probabilities relate to groups and not individuals and in specific circumstances they might not apply at all. The judgement of the Appeal Court – Regina v Porter 2008 – which dismisses some risks as being ‘fanciful’ or ‘hypothetical’ is wholly persuasive and these degrees of risk as well as ‘the trivial risks of everyday life’ are readily subsumed within the term ‘Low risk’ requiring no action to be taken.

Risk Assessment – Cannot be considered on its own because any risk assessment is simultaneously a potential benefit consideration else why the considered maintenance or introduction of identifiable risk elements?


Risk Managing Is the first consequence of risk assessment providing seven related and alternative strategies within which risk/benefit calculations can be made.:

1. Avoidance or elimination of specific risks by rejection or removal of procedures or objects for example, removing barbed wire from fences to guard against injury

2. Reduction or mitigation by risk through intervention procedures such as the introduction of substitute less hazardous parts or materials; for example, replacing hard swing seats to lessen the effects of impact.

3. Engineering: e.g.. putting in place a barrier to the hazard; for example, install a baffle at the playground entrance to reduce the risk of road accidents.

4. System of operation: i.e. introduce procedures which minimise risk; for example, adjust opening and closing hours to limit play to hours of daylight.

5. Personal protective measures: for example, requiring those using skateboard areas to wear the appropriate protective gear.

6. Transfer of risk e.g. requiring an individual or group to accept responsibility for all aspects of an undertaking as an alternative to closure - insurance is often seen as a variant on this procedure

7. Retention and so acceptance of quantifiable risk and consequent budgetary considerations


Risk Benefit Assessment – The issues here are superficially simple but vexatious, amoral and studiously calculative in balancing life and limb against pounds and pence.

1. First one has to identify specific benefits Physical? Psychological? Economic? Social?

2. Quantify or otherwise describe them in relation to health gains or other advantages and identify specific favourable outcomes

3. Identify the beneficiaries – Me? You? Child? Parent? Suppliers? Manufacturers?

4. The prospect of reversibility of action must be assessed if in response to calls for action new procedures or installations are introduced, old equipment or practices are abandoned and outcomes are worse, consequently.

5. Worst case scenario must be considered and responded to

The fundamental question is number 3. Who gets the benefit of the trade off?


Lord Young of Graffham does not discuss any of these issues!

NOTE

Possibly the best known 'frivolous action. in recent years was that of Liebeck v McDonalds 1994 in which millions of dollars were at stake. The fact of the matter is that McDonalds were negligent, an elderly woman was severely burned, compensation was paid and now we all benefit from tight fitting lids when we buy a coffee in a take a way cafe.
Looks like progress to me

Look also at : Tomlinson v Congleton (and Cheshire CC) described briefly below


Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act 2007

This new Act which came into force on April 6th 2008 creates a new offence capable of convicting an organisation where a gross failure to create systems or processes or to properly manage such systems or procedures results in a person's death.

The requirement to undertake risk assessments and to adopt safe practices in undertakings is well understood and while this Act adds nothing to these duties it provides both an encouragement and occasion to review present arrangements and practices.
Additionally it seems prudent to

1) review policy in relation to risk toleration and
2) to check insurance cover in relation to this offence

It is assumed that the organisation is familiar with and follows the H & SE advice contained in HS(G) 65 Managing Health and Safety - Five steps to Success.
This is copyright material but single copies can be obtained free or it can be downloaded

The first person to face charges under the Act was Peter Eaton, a director of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings, who was accused of ‘gross negligence’ leading to the death of a staff member - Alexander Wright. 27, who was taking soil samples from a pit in Brimscombe Lane, Stroud, when it collapsed on him

Mr Eaton was charged with ‘gross negligence manslaughter’ but the case was adjourned and was to proceed in Bristol late in 2010. but continuing ill health has dogged him and it is unlikely that proceedings will be resumed until well into 2011 at which time a most important pathfinder verdict is likely to be delivered.

The requirement to undertake risk assessments and to adopt safe practices is well understood and while this Act adds nothing to these duties it provides both an encouragement and occasion to review present arrangements and practices.
Additionally it seems prudent to:


Tomlinson v Congleton (and Cheshire CC)

THE FACTS

On 6th May 1995 John Tomlinson spent a hot Saturday afternoon on a sandy beach in Brereton Heath Country Park, a wooded area by a flooded and landscaped sand quarry near Congleton. He ran into the water to mid thigh depth then flung himself forward striking his head on the sandy bottom thus dislocating his neck. Lords of Appeal on 31st July 2003 allowed an appeal by the council(s) against previous judgements of liability on the grounds that no negligence or other failure on the part of the council was responsible for the unfortunate outcome The judges in their recognition of social benefits arising from toleration of risk were at pains to confirm earlier findings in relation to the special status of children and some others but introduced new priorities specific to responsible and informed adults. Key phrases used included

1. ‘prepare for children to be less careful than adults
2. ‘allow people of full capacity to decide for themselves whether to take risks’
3. ‘A duty to protect against obvious risks ……. exists only in cases in which there is no genuine or informed choice…….inability of children to recognise danger’

The relevance of the findings to woodlands, nature parks and in the vicinity of hazardous natural features must be considered valid but less obviously so in play areas

APPLICATIONS

At the High Court, September 2003, the Tomlinson case was cited in Simonds v Isle of Wight Council, and a favourable county court judgement was overturned

THE FACTS

After a break for lunch at a school sports day Ryan Simonds, aged five, was sent back to his teachers while his mother went shopping. He played on swings in another part of the field, which were recognised as a potential hazard, and in jumping off them broke an arm. Action in the County Court awarded damages but on appeal the fact that he was not delivered back to school staff was an issue. The Tomlinson case was also seen as being relevant and Mr Justice Gross’s remarks relating to our inability to make playgrounds entirely safe might allow the ‘Social Utility’ defence to be raised again.

Overall conclusions

Whereas in former times three elements defined ‘duty of care’ being fully met
:
1. Risk
2. Seriousness of potential injury and
3. Cost of safeguarding against risk

The Tomlinson case appears to add two new elements

1. Social value of the activity and
2. Freedom of the individual to undertake risk.

The relevance of Tomlinson V Congleton in connection with play appears remote since, at 18 John was not a child, there was neither playground, play equipment or safety surfaces associated with this case nor was any British standard breached. ‘Compensation culture’ lobbyists confuse trivial injury claims with growing awareness of rights and legitimate claims on behalf of children who cannot fairly be lumped in with that ‘reckless few’ the protection of whom would unreasonably curtail the legitimate exercise of risk laden choice by the majority. American decisions e.g. Bucheleres v Chicago which press for ‘Social Utility’ should not be added counter to safer play measures.

Mark Barnes v Scout Association

The facts – a game involving running up to a diminishing pile of blocks and snatching one was ‘spiced up’ by turning off the lights. Mark suffered permanent injury and had his award of £7,322 upheld two to one at the Court of Appeal – December 2010.

Lord Justice Jackson allowed the appeal “ Obviously the risks of this particular game were increased by switching off the lights. But I do not see how it could possibly be said that these increased risks outweighed the social benefits of the activity” It is the function of the “ law of tort to deter negligent conduct and to compensate those who are the victims of such conduct ………not to eliminate every iota of risk or to stamp out socially desirable activities”

Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Ward dismissed the appeal.


BSEN1176 – 2008 provides recognition of ‘an increasing need for play provision to be accessible to users with disabilities’ is set against the requirement to ‘provide a balance between safety and the offer of the required level of challenge and stimulation to all possible groups of users’.
This idea is linked to clinical conditions associated with ‘increased size of the head’ and the ‘wearing of (protective) helmets’. The references to head size are ill informed and insensitive.
While every child on a bike should wear a helmet and so might be vulnerable in a playground why should they fix on some specifically needy children as a target while conspicuously ignoring the more obvious and numerous incidence of this same potential hazard?

‘Barrier free’ environments seem likely to engage further interest and while American experience will suitably inform our debates their apparent major concern with wheel chair accessible environments is perhaps more narrowly focussed than the incidence of perceived need might justify.




The range of current play provision

Communities provide a diverse and numerous range of play spaces and equipment with a traditional preponderance of play equipment for the younger child and adolescent but additionally provide facilities within the peripheral or minority areas of interest as outlined below.
Most councils provide a very safe and popular play and recreation service as evidenced by the fact that in a critical review of an authority with over a hundred play locations over the last three years only eight accident reports have been filed and three insurance claims have been received in connection with accidents.

It is a matter of interest and concern that this analysis identified half of the accidents with one play item, the HAGS cycle roundabout but none of the claims related to it.

The provision of all public play space and play facilities is subject to the requirements of specific legislation and there are standards applicable but not legally enforceable throughout Europe which provide guidance in relation to the manufacture, installation and inspection of play equipment and its associated safe surfacing where appropriate.


Play areas

1. The LAP = Local Area for Play. Play space for the younger child, (0-6) unequipped, 100 square metres area and with suitable seating for parents and other carers located within one minute walking time from home

2. The LEAP = Local Equipped Area for Play This is play space for the slightly older child (4-8), equipped and with suitable seating for parents and other carers, 400 square metres area. with five modes of play and located, within five minutes walking time from home

3. The NEAP = Neigbourhood Equipped Area for Play This is play space for older children (8+), 1000 square metres area equipped’ with eight modes of play as well as ‘kick about’ and wheeled sports opportunities and within fifteen minutes walking time from home

Prior to 1st January 1999, in Britain, most children's playground equipment was supplied to British Standard (BS) 5696, or to the German equivalent standard, DIN 7926, or, exceptionally, to other national standards. Similarly, BS 7188 was adopted as the standard governing Impact Absorbing Surfaces (IAS). By agreement and consultation a new European standard, BS EN 1176 Playground equipment, has now replaced BS 5696 and another new standard, BS EN 1177 Impact absorbing playground surfacing - safety requirements and test methods, has replaced much of BS 7188. These two new standards taken together rather than in isolation and with residual elements of the amended standard, BS 7188 Methods of test for impact absorbing playground surfaces, provide a necessary and comprehensive guide to equipment, its installation and appropriate surfacing. These standards enable site managers to comply with health and safety legislation, principally the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974.

It is important to note that the standard is intended to apply to all play equipment in public parks, schools, commercial facilities (pubs and restaurants, etc. community areas and shopping centres). The standard is not retrospective and does not apply to adventure playgrounds that are fenced and supervised. The standard does not encompass ‘play value’ and excludes items defined as toys in EN 72 Safety of Toys

Multi use games areas – MUGAS

Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAS) are in varying degrees of sophistication merely games walls providing a mini multi-sport arena for up to eight sports, at relatively low cost.
PAS 30 15/12/1998 and, since finger ,head and neck entrapment are considered risks appropriate sections of EN1176 are applied to these facilities (See EN 51312 – Free access multi sports equipment which additionally incorporates a specific requirement relating to access/egress for ‘disabled users’.)

While there is at present a debate concerning the application of the above standards to all associated locations, councils are advised to proceed upon the basis that All play areas are in varying degrees subject to BRITISH STANDARDS - EUROPEAN STANDARDS BS EN 1176 AND 1177 as revised, extended and amended


Natural Play areas

A recently publicised recognition of the value of incorporating existing or imported natural landscape features into the play context has encouraged the development of these play areas. . Felled trees, landscaping and boulders figure largely in them but there is little interest in introducing water or animals as further natural elements.

The Association of Play Industries (API) has issued a guidance note on Inspection and Maintenance of natural play areas which, while recognizing that there are additional and different considerations in inspecting and maintaining these locations nonetheless states that BSEN1176 has continuing application.
A dissenting group led by Professor David Ball urges the view that API is both incorrect and inconsistent in taking this position and that the acceptance of risk-benefit assessments must be taken to drive both the decision to change the nature of the play space and the means and methodology of inspection and maintenance procedures..
Both sides agree that the range of knowledge required to inspect and maintain these areas goes beyond the narrow limits of the standard and that risk assessment is an essential and key element in these exercises while maintenance procedures and so costs are bound to be affected by the change in emphasis and priorities arising from them.

Example. The introduction of sand as a feature in the play area carries with it costs and risks associated with managing the material , topping up procedures, and the additional costs arising from abrasive damage to paint finishes and wood surfaces through contact with sandy shoe soles

Wheeled sports locations – BMX tracks - Skateboard areas – Skate parks

BS EN14974 2006 Facilities for use of roller sports equipment – Safety requirements and test methods now covers the whole of the range of wheeled and roller sports and new installations should be certified as conforming to this standard

Prior to the introduction of the new British standard the best available advice in relation to unpowered wheeled sports facilities was PAS 35 2002 and DIN 33943 and these might well have directed installation and management of these facilities


EN14974 Para. 5.1.1.1. Scope …..’which can to a large extent protect users and third parties from hazard when used as intended or as can reasonably be expected’

· Recognising the inevitable risks and hazards of all wheeled sports BS EN14974 makes the point that developed skills and the use of protective clothing reduce the risk of accidents and mitigate outcomes.
· In this special case and subject to a specific risk assessment the provision of daily inspections might be justified.
· The new standard further limits previously issued guidance in advising the provision of clear and visible signs stating what facilities are available to site users as well as urging the use of appropriate protective equipment, helmet, knee and elbow pads etc. and Information relating to administrative management of the facility
(See the note on signage attached)

Additionally these areas are subject, where relevant, to BRITISH STANDARDS - EUROPEAN STANDARDS BS EN 1176 AND 1177 as revised, extended and amended


Trim trails

Generally ten or more units laid out around a course and enabling lifting and stretching exercises with running between the sites as an additional fitness aid. While there is at present a debate concerning the application of the above standards to all associated locations councils are advised to proceed upon the basis that all play areas are subject to BRITISH STANDARDS - EUROPEAN STANDARDS BS EN 1176 AND 1177 as revised, extended and amended

Fitness stations

Generally less units laid out in a more concentrated area but also enabling lifting and stretching exercises utilising more sophisticated gym style apparatus While there is at present a debate concerning the application of the above standards to all associated locations councils are advised to proceed upon the basis that all play areas are subject to BRITISH STANDARDS - EUROPEAN STANDARDS BS EN 1176 AND 1177 as revised, extended and amended


Inspection and maintenance considerations

The nature of these activities require special measures in relation to inspection and maintenance and the presumption must be that staff inspecting facilities
have been trained in procedures and that this is certified by line managers or operators or externally validated as appropriate.

1. Routine visual inspection
The area and its facilities might be visually inspected every day to identify new or worsening hazards arising from use, vandalism or adverse climatic or similar conditions including accidental damage. Log entry required. Specifically applies to extensive BMX tracks and the individual risk assessment will indicate relevance and application in particular cases.

2. Operational inspection
The whole area and its facilities should be inspected at least once a month for stability and the effects of use as well as variable local conditions such as erosion or ‘clay heave’.(also more of a track than a park issue) Log entry with recommendations for action required.

3. Annual main inspection
At least once a year a comprehensive inspection should be carried out by a qualified RPII Annual Inspector. Written report added to the log entries with a planned programme of action to meet any new advice or requirements..

4. Maintenance.
After all inspections any measures identified as being necessary for the continued safe use of the facility should be put in hand Log entry of any action taken required.


Technical and other terms in general use

When inspection reports are received clients commonly express concern at the fact that they don’t understand what specific terms and advice mean. To rectify this situation there follows a compendium of frequently used technical terms.

1. Bar over chute not in place or not in standard form. Attached (but not stilt or other free standing) slides require a rail or bar across the access opening which should be at a height between 700mm and 900mm and the sides of the starting section should be at least 500mm high. Grip/grasp requirements apply in this case and in every related case unless specifically excluded.

2. Finger trap if an 8mm rod can readily enter an accessible space in a raised section of play equipment then a 25mm rod. must freely enter too

3. Grip/grasp fail is a reference to the diameter of ladder rungs stiles and related parts that are used for support or balance. Rungs must not exceed 60 mm in diameter (this is the ‘grasp’ requirement); alternatively, the ladder must have handrails between 16 and 45 mm in diameter (the ‘grip’ requirement). ‘Grip’ is related to a child’s need to support weight, while ‘grasp’ is a necessary aid to balance and stability

4. Head traps occur at heights in excess of 600mm from the ground and in association with completely bound openings such as ladder rungs where probe C fully enters the space but probe D does not There is a theoretical justification for this possibly not being a BS breach if it can be guaranteed that children are all aged over 36months otherwise it can be disregarded.

5. Insufficient safety surfacing For fall heights between 1 metre and 1.5 metres, install surfacing for 1.5 metres all round and for heights between 1.5 and 2.5 metres extend the area to 2.5 metres. Roundabouts require safe surfacing to a minimum of 2 metres all round. Cable runways must have 2 metres of surfacing to each side of the runway path. Alternatively loose fill material (LIAS) is scattered or troughed and so of inadequate depth. LIAS requires regular management since a minimum depth must be maintained at 300mm

6. LIAS Loose impact attenuating surface such as sand, pea gravel, bark and wood chip.

7. Low, medium or high risk, Expressions of opinion translating as ‘note but no action needed’, ’remedy where possible’ and ‘take action to bar use pending a remedy’. Wheeled sports always incorporate high risk which is mitigated by appropriate location, management, training, and required protective clothing

8. Orientation British Standards require inter alia that suppliers of equipment should provide advice relating to orientation as necessary in relation to sun and wind. Essentially this is a version of the earlier BS 5696 requirement to avoid solar gain on slide chutes which must point north but never south.

9. Potential crush injury is evident on bridges, or in other positions where e.g. gap dimensions change during use, when the minimum dimension in any position is less than 12mm. See saws and rockers also cause crush injury.

10. Safety surface needed In relation to fall heights up to 60 cm grass and loose topsoil are acceptable as a surface, and under favourable conditions such surfaces are safe for falls up to one metre. Beyond this point an installed surface is required even within enclosed spaces such as playhouses.

11. Slide chute is not full width Sliding section of slide chutes should be the full width of the starting section i.e. no gaps to the sides creating ‘toggle’ or potential clothing entrapment.

12. Swing seats set low the minimum ground clearance recommended by BS is 350mm – there is no maximum.

13. Unexpected obstacles Objects or parts that intrude into circulation areas and so can trip or cause collision injury.

14. Wet pour Cast polymeric bound rubber crumb used as a safety surface and usually contained within edge pavers is generally described as ‘wetpour’

Updated December 5th 2011