FOI 4740 – Watermead Country Park
Response
See claim combined analysis report.
All of the claims were in respect of damage caused by the entry bollard.
Our claim files are compiled in contemplation of litigation and are thus privileged.
The response to FOI 2698 was as below:
“1. How many instances and the reasons for these instances of vehicle accidents/vehicle near
misses/vehicle insurance claims have been reported either formally or informally to the Council in
connection with the paid access system at Watermead Country Park, Northern Car park, Wanlip Road
and the southern car park off Mill Lane.
Since 27/10/2003 there have been 10 legal liability claims (including your own) relating to bollards,
with 446,225 cars passing through the system to 3rd June 2011. We have no record of near misses or
hit and run. They are not reported by the drivers.
2. Of the Insurance Claims how many have been successfully won by the claimants and the reasons
for the claims.
One claim was met fully (27/10/2003) which was a cyclist overtaking a car .A bypass for cyclists was
built in November of that year. A further claim for an incident on 16/5/2010 has been agreed and £100
(excess) paid to date. Both claims were in respect of damage caused by the entry bollard. No other
claim has been settled to date.
FOI 4740 – Watermead Country Park
3. Copies of all Minutes and documentation related to the installation of the access barriers. Plus any
documentation and reasons for the additional “no entry” cycle signs fitted.
The access control system was activated in 11 August 2003. The file relating to the work is no longer
in existence, as it over six years old. Since the installation, a cycle bypass was installed in November
2003, with directional signage, and as part of the recently completed Connect2 Project, this was
revised and further signage installed in early April 2011, as it was anticipated that there would be an
increase in cycle use of the Park. A camera survey was undertaken on 10th & 16 April which
indicated that although the majority of cyclists used the bypass, a few continued to go through the
access control to both ingress and egress the Park. The County Council has taken , and is continuing
to take, all reasonable measures within its power to deal with this issue.
4. Any minutes, incident reports and correspondence where the entry system has been activated
inadvertently by e.g. bicycles which has resulted in the entry system not functioning correctly and
either stopping or damaging vehicles when entering the park
Incidents are advised by telephone by the Rangers to the Insurance Section and it is then logged as a
potentially pending claim. Nothing further is done unless a formal claim is submitted by a Member of
the public or that persons motor insurer. Records are not kept in the Country Parks section. We are
unable to provide details of individual insurance claims against the County Council as they contain
personal information and are legally privileged.
5. All Health and safety risk assessments and method statements for the use and operation of the
access barrier to ensure the safety of the public
The suppliers’ safety document is attached. The equipment and specific signage required and in
place were as per the supplier’s safety document. This equipment is installed all over the UK and we
abided by ATG’s recommendations. There were no specific Risk Assessments as such because the
risk of injury to persons was considered low, and this has been proven by the volume of traffic and the
few instances of damage to vehicles
6. All reports reviewing or reporting the access barrier suitability in connection with correct operation
and comparison to other entry systems etc
There has been no review of the system since installation. The system is used throughout the UK and
by the Home Office. One member of staff periodically attends a Local Authority user group arranged
through the manufacturer.
7. Any decision making reports into why this type of access system was chosen.
The research into access control was contained in the previously mentioned file which was destroyed
after 6 years, possibly in/around 2008.
Three systems were considered: Rising Gates, Rising Bollards and Road Blockers. The first was
discounted because of fragility; the third was discounted because of its industrial/high security
appearance and use. Rising bollards were chosen because they were deemed to meet the
requirements to improve security, improve cash collection and the company already had worked in
joint ventures with the manufacturer of the ticket machines which were adapted
8. Any proposals relating to changing the entry system
There are no proposals to change the access control system.”