Posted By Rob Malcolm While watching the local South West evening news I discovered that my local Council has banned a North Devon (Barnstaple) landlord from displaying his prize winning flowers on health and safety grounds. Please could someone from a local authority explain to me the reasoning for this as I believe that this is the kind of thing that gives H&S a bad name. Is it me or am I not thinking outside of the (flower) box.

Posted By Alan Haynes I did read that the reason the 'ban' was put in place was that the 'display' narrowed the available width of pavement too much - I have seen photos and the display does, in places, come down to pavement level. I understand that pavement users had complained that the pavement was now too narrow for pushchair users etc. I think it is press 'spin' that pushed it so much as a H&S matter rather than a byelaw issue. Still - it does make a good addition to the 'bonkers conkers' listing

Posted By Lance Morgan some discussion on sensible risk on HSE website http://www.hse.gov.uk/riskdebate/index.htm

Posted By John Webster Try saying "Lord Hunt of Kings Heath" quickly after a few drams! Or maybe, better not!

Posted By Jack In my experience it is not usually a h&s professional who sets these hares running but zealous (or perhaps nervous) managers. I seem to spend an increasing amount of time these days advising that a particular course of action can be done or a particular activity is not banned. But are we to blame for creating this attitude?

Posted By Stuart Nagle Rob. The local authority (also it appears a local highway authority) are perfectly within the law under the highways act 1980 to require the removal of items deposited on the highway illegally (without highway authority consent) or that obstruct the highway illegally. Both items are dealt with under seperate sectuions of the highways act 1980. It is interesting though that only a 'police constable in uniform' can enforce the law of obstruction, and without going to court the officer attending the 'incident' must form a judgement of what is or what is not an obstruction, there and then, and act upon it. In this incidence, I would have though that either; A) the display of flowers were obstructing the highway (as is mentioned above in that they 'narrowed' the footpath to an unacceptable degree, or B) the display was likely to cause injury, e.g. hanging baskets hanging over the footway upon which persons could strike their head ect. It is interesting to note that (A) is NOT a health and safety issue per se, it is a legal issue of obstruction of the public highway, and (B) above could more rightly be called a health and safety issue.... However, as always, it's not so much what is or what is not the 'actual' problem, it's someone jumping on the bandwaggon and stating it's a health and safety issue in the hope of trying, it would appear, of bringing the subject into disrepute, by making it something that it is not.... If of course all and sundry are prepared to belive such twaddle, then it's not for us to scold the issue, but to rebuke the person who has intentionally 9it would appear) misrepresented the issue to be something that it is not.... Stuart

Posted By Diane Thomason Good points made above, i.e. these stories often turn out not to be about H&S decisions, but have been spinned into bonkers-conkers stories by the media. Makes a much better story for them than "the flower boxes were blocking the pavement so the LA said they had to be moved". Has everyone seen the article in SHP about "hitting back"? IOSH will respond to examples of "bad H&S" and unfair criticism. The poeple to contact are Ruth Doyle (ruth.doyle@iosh.co.uk) or Paul Marston (paul.marston@iosh.co.uk.)

Posted By John Murphy This is a "lift" from the HSE Debate Forum. HSE believe there are some serious issues about risk that need to be faced up to. On the one hand there are stories of hanging baskets being banned in case they fall on someone, trapeze artists being made to wear hard hats, children being banned from playing conkers or made to wear goggles when they do and signs to be put up on Snowdon to warn of slippery areas. Fortunately some of the stories are just that – stories. But worryingly, whilst they go well beyond what is required by law, others are based in fact. On the other hand last year 235 people were killed at work, well over 30,000 suffered major injuries (broken bones etc) and 30 million working days were lost due to ill health caused or made worse by work. Many of the injuries and cases of ill health resulted from very well-know and preventable causes. They resulted in individual suffering, costs to business and to the economy as a whole. That is why from 13th July 2005 until early 2006 we are promoting a debate on where the sensible balance lies in health and safety. So how do we stop excessive risk aversion, but still protect people? This web forum runs from 13th July until 5th October and gives you an opportunity to have your say online. There are four fora in which you can contribute: Risk aversion - the main debate - forum Public safety - forum Education - forum Local government - forum Steven Sumner, health and safety policy adviser at the Employers Organisation for Local Government has said it is important the views of LA safety and health practitioners are reflected in the debate and they are encouraged to log on to HSE pages (link below) and having come to a considered view regarding theses issues, contribute to the debate. http://www.hse.gov.uk/riskdebate/index.htm