Something not adding up with your description - if there is a public right of way it would not pass through the pond ergo the pond must be off to one side or another.

The local council normally end up involved if someone puts up a fence which obstructs what people had considered accessible so it would be prudent to discuss any such plan with them before spending money.

A couple of deep water / do not swim notices on the approach side will probably end up in the pond as will any life ring / throw rope so if they do get installed be prepared to continually recover and replace.

Personally I live a short walk from a pond that sits in the centre of a housing estate accessible from all sides which is wholly devoid of any fencing, notices or life saving equipment as is the public footpath that runs along the side of the local river just behind those houses.

Peter Gotch did a post recently on reservoirs and liability - just can't quite find it.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Something not adding up with your description - if there is a public right of way it would not pass through the pond ergo the pond must be off to one side or another.

The local council normally end up involved if someone puts up a fence which obstructs what people had considered accessible so it would be prudent to discuss any such plan with them before spending money.

A couple of deep water / do not swim notices on the approach side will probably end up in the pond as will any life ring / throw rope so if they do get installed be prepared to continually recover and replace.

Personally I live a short walk from a pond that sits in the centre of a housing estate accessible from all sides which is wholly devoid of any fencing, notices or life saving equipment as is the public footpath that runs along the side of the local river just behind those houses.

Peter Gotch did a post recently on reservoirs and liability - just can't quite find it.

Thanks for the reply, apologises I didnt explain it right.

There is a bridal way which runs alongside the pond, the pond and the land is owned by the farm estate. My question is what if anything should we be doing to warn the dangers of entering the pond and swimming in it?  The farmer is aware that members of the public do swim in it, wants them to enjoy it as its a place where his son's memorial is, but at the same time doesnt want people to get hurt, drowning etc.

In terms of the signs and rings and throw ropes etc, it wouldnt be unlikely that would happen, this is in the middle of countryside, so very rural and no housing estates nearby.

Edited by user 08 September 2023 20:00:05(UTC)  | Reason: changes to text

Hi Philip

Here's the link to the Environment Agency publication referenced in the posting that Roundtuit refers to:

Guide to public safety on flood and coastal risk management sites - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

You have to consider both the case law, but also that what happens in practice has tended to progress further than a simple "it's so obviously dangerous, that as the occupier, we don't need to do anything" to consideration of the population at risk and the volume of risk - how many people, how many hours per time period.

Which means that where there are lots of people and some of them are more vulnerable e.g. small children, those chasing after their dogs, OR there might be some more unusual feature [e.g. "shelving" where the gradient into the water body is shallow but then with a sudden drop - typical of many Scottish lochs] then occupiers do tend to start thinking about what precautions MIGHT be pragmatic.

So, opposite the main entrance to the brand new Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow is a balancing pond [part of the "SUDS" strategy]. Heavy volume, lots of vulnerable people and the high wooden fence with a locked gate is sensible. Not actually convinced as to the need for some life rings just in case somebody still climbs the fence.

In contrast, almost every year there is a drowning in Loch Lomond where someone has gone swrmming from the East bank just North of Balloch Country Park and there are clamours for MORE life rings, MORE signs, MORE this, that and the other. 

I get my water from Milngavie Water Treatment Works to the North of Glasgow. Until they built a new mega underground reservoir the WTW got its water from two interlinked above ground reservoirs which have been somewhere for people to walk around for well over a century. There was entirely justified outcry when someone decided to fence off parts of the footpath!!

Now this pond you refer to is almost in the middle of nowhere. Even with public access, limited population at risk for relatively short periods of time. The small children should be under adult supervisioin. Up to the dog owners to keep their animals under control - OR be confident that the dog can cope with a bit of water. So your risk assessment is likely to be pointing you towards a "do very little" approach (IMHO - but ultimately for the Courts to decide on a case by case basis).

Edited by user 09 September 2023 13:14:55(UTC)  | Reason: Correct finger for tyouchyping but in wrong place.

Hi

Having worked with the EA in the past I know they take a robust to H&S on the water features they manage. The document listed by Peter reflects this. Obviously you need to do some sort of risk assessment  but the controls that you decide  upon must be proportionate, which is essentially what this document says, and Ian is right as they look at Tomlinson-v-Congleton-Borough-Council  and use that as a basis for deciding which controls are appropriate. The case law that they have looked at essentially says that a pond is a natural feature and as such it may contain hazards, you would expect that an average adult would appreciate the hazards and take the sensible  precaution of not swimming in a pond of known depth containing unknown hazards. In the EA report it says “Case law has shown us that only unexpected danger needs to be communicated to the public but even so, a wide range of signs are available.  It is important that the correct information is given in an understandable form.” So if the pond a has a particular hazard, over and above a “normal” hazard then you really don’t need to do anything  but some sort of signage telling people not to enter the water might be useful. If access to the pond is  sloping shoreline then there is no need for barriers. They would only be relevant if there was something like an expected  hazard such a sudden drop into the water.

So basically you can assume that most people are fairly sensible and  won’t dive into the water. The few who are not do so at their own risk,.

Anyway that’s what I think!

The council at Harpur's Hill Quarry in the Peak District would often pour black dye in to what is called "The Blue Lagoon" the striking blue water having an exceedingly alkali pH (hidden danger) - even that does not deter those bent on self destruction.

I sometimes think we get hung up on natural features, from what im reading the pond is not being run as a tourist attraction, and while people may swim in it you are not encouraging this as a leisure activity. I would agree with those people saying this is an occupiers liability issue. So i would be looking at the dangers from a lawful use of the bridleway/footpath, which for me is the danger of someone accidentally entering the water. Look at the definition of the bank, height above water level. Only if you think the risk of accidental entry is high i would consider safety measures - such as fencing etc. 

There was a lot of publicity 3 years ago when a young girl fell down Ceunant Mawr waterfall near Llanberis, people calling for fencing, signs etc, but as far as i can see on a quick internet search no legal action, civil or criminal was taken.