There is a wood near here where I walk the dog. It backs onto a large secondary school and is routinely used as a cut through by students and make shift BMX park (industrious little people have built a very complex BMX park in a bomb hole using the tree roots and shovels - bet they don't out the same effort into their school work!!) Anyway, they are deep ponds and so there are safety signs and safety life belt things. However, you say that your ponds are shallow so I don't think lifebelts would be appropriate and 2ft deep wouldn't justify 'warning deep water' signs. Personally I wouldn't be concerned about the secondary school kids. However, cemetries would reasonably have visiting young kids and so despite my agreement about imposing on a tranquil place I think you may have to take some precautions. Especially taking into account the unfortunate liability when a kid got killed by a falling gravestone. Don't think a sign would do it as young kids can't read. An invisible grill sounds like a good option - shame about the possible impact on wildlife though. I don't have experience of ponds in cemetries so this is just my opinion.

Calirel It's likely the kids are going to be supervised by adults so they should take responsibility for their kids not expect others to look out for them. do we start putting invisible grills across lakes and canals. most kids at a very young age can read and those that are to young to read i would expect to be supervised by their parents. lets not fall into the trap of coming up with ideas for the sake of it. Roads are our most dangerous places for kids but we don't fence of every inch of a road side to stop kids getting on them. phil

Sorry Clairel (hopefully spelt right) I'm saying what you have suggested is wrong but more that we should not put forward suggestions for the sake of it and look at using common sense, all to often with in a short time you end up with totally over the top suggestions which only adds to the bonkers conkers image of H&S. To be honest I'm not that familiar with your posts as i'm not often on this site and not much good at remembering names (even less spelling them) other sites I'm a member on use Avatars and these stick in my mind more than names. from memory (which you already know is bad) it's very young children under 2 that are at risk at of drowning in water as they can't turn themselves over or stand up as easily so are at risk if falling face first in water. I'm not going to say older children have drowned in such circumstances but i would imagine it's very low. To me i would expect that children in the cemetery would be accompanied by adults that would be at particular risks and there are certainly areas of deeper water that children have access that offer no means of protection to children where they are likely to be playing on their own which are owned by the council. with no more at times then the provision of life buoy which are often missing due to kids throwing them in water. But it is interesting that you only say action needs taking from a liability point of view and in your own view no further precautions should be necessary. The gravestone to me although not fully aware of the incident, so difficult to comment on. but some of these headstones can be very large especially bigger than a small child so there could be a possibility if old or not securely fixed that it could topple over causing serious injury. similar to an old brick wall which is in poor condition could topple over and there have been cases where this has happened onto public footpaths due to building work in the property. Phil

Hi, RoSPA's "Safety at Inland Water Sites" is an excellent document for advice on this issue. I would agree with Phil's comments, if the ponds were in primary school grounds then controls would obviously be necessary but not here. As already mentioned we don't generally fence off natural features such as ponds and rivers that are open to the public or man made canals which will often have a path alongside. Lifebelts can be something of a thorny issue for deep water as they need to be regularly inspected for vandalism etc and I believe that there original design is such that they are very effective for dropping over the side of a ship but not easy to throw horizontally for any distance but someone may put me right there. Regards Steve

Benham31351 I have been approached by my crematorium manager regarding the ponds in the grounds of the crematorium and cemetery we operate. I am on annual leave for a week from today but I would be happy to have a chat to you regarding our approach we are considering. Please PM me and I will contact you on my return. Inchoa

Thank you all for your contributions to this thread - some very useful points have come out of it. I like the idea of signage at the front gates, but all signage on this site is gold lettering on wooden boards. They will resist standard safety signs as they are trying to create an atmosphere in sympathy with people who are grieving. I am not sure, therefore, that signage will be well read. Generally, safety signs are not well read at the best of times, so much less gold lettering on wooden boards. The fact that two other council's have felt it necessary to put in safety measures seems to suggest that the risk is recognised, but that there are no common safety standards. I have some views about drawing a comparison with canals and park lakes, but don't want to go into too much detail here. I fear we may have to go down the route of some physical barrier, but I have left a message with our insurance team who has contacted its consortium members for a view, so I'll see what comes out of that first. I am not sure the risk is low. The likelihood is highly unlikley (based on past history), but the severity could be extremely harmful (if we define the risk group as children up to age,say, 6). So my crude estimate is that the risk is possibly moderate. In the mean time, I may ask the manager of the site to consult with the grounds maintenance staff, since thay will probably have observed what really happens on the site. This will at least make them more conscious of the ponds and "put it on their radar." I am conscious, though, of the danger of getting into "analysis paralysis." Thanks, again, though, for all who have contributed to this. I was in a bit of a quandary over how far to go.

Although I appreciate the modern world encroaching into an "oasis of peace and quiet" argument, approved safety signage would, in my opinion be the minimum required option. Regardless of the location being a factory or a cemetary the regulations are equally applicable and we can't argue with that. After all - the end result is to try and prevent someone becoming a "resident" of the cemetaty themselves and I think that would outweigh any other argument or sentiment.

DARBY v THE NATIONAL TRUST [2001] B3/2000/0523 outlines some of these issues Mike

Hi Benham Here's an extract from one I wrote last month..... "Whilst obvious aimed at managing risks to the public rather than those carrying out a work activity, there are a number of examples as to precautions (including as regards rescue) being taken (or not) to stop people drowning in watercourses at http://www.vscg.co.uk/ http://publications.envi...pdf/SCHO0809BQVS-e-e.pdf " The leading case law is Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council which draws on cases back to the 1900s involving Glasgow Corporation and its Edinburgh equivalent. The Glasgow case involved a young child drowning in the River Kelvin, the Edinburgh one a young child drowning in a pond in a park. In each case no liability. In essence T v CBC says no duty where the danger is obvious and natural or man-made so as to mimic the natural e.g. case against East of Scotland Water involving man drowning in a reservoir, unless there are particular issues which exacerbate the risks referencing an adverse camber on a cliff top walkway. That said times have changed and occupiers do tend to take some action as evidenced by the VSCG website. For example, stretches of the Kelvin now fenced, as are stretches of the Clyde, Tay and Ness which are referred to in the Glasgow Corporation judgment. It is clear that various local authorities and other land owners have assessed the risks (whether deliberately or otherwise) and taken various levels of precaution depending on location. (I've got a fair few photos to illustrate that did not end up in the Defra /Environment Agency website). My own view for your ponds, would be to conclude if there are no sharp drops, then probably nothing is necessary, noting that any precautions are likely to have adverse impacts e.g. on amenity, ecology etc. If sharp drops best solution might be plants to keep small children away from the more dangerous parts of the ponds. See specific case study at the VSCG website. Oh and for those of you who think that I'm not sufficiently interested in the safety of the public (!!!) I've given evidence in court in relation to an accident involving someone falling from a cliff top in an urban location, pointing out that the land owner had fenced parts of the cliff top in the next town. My own view was that the location might fall within the issues exacerbated zone. Victim did NOT win their case with judgment pointing to all the cases referred to above. As an aside, various parts of the British Isles (e.g. Channel Islands, Isle of Man) have concluded that Occupiers Liability legislation is wholly unnecessary if you apply the principles referenced in www.thepaisleysnail.com. Regards, Peter

Just like to say many thanks, once again, to all those who have contributed to this thread. There have been some really helpful responses and useful links. It shows the strength of the forum.