Safety rail a con­cern

The Packet (Clarenville) - - FRONT PAGE -

The Pen­neys also noted they had dif­fi­culty get­ting Ser­vice NL to ap­prove the rail along the wheel­chair ramp at­tached to the main cabin build­ing.

Rod claims Ser­vice NL orig­i­nally ap­proved the rails on the take­out build­ing, which are the same de­sign as the rail on the cabin, which had been ap­proved.

He says that a Ser­vice NL rep­re­sen­ta­tive later said the rail was not up to stan­dard, and needed an­other rail­ing added. They claim after they in­serted the ex­tra rail­ing, Ser­vice NL asked that yet an­other rail­ing be added, which was done. The rail was de­nied again and on Oct. 16 Pen­ney claimed Ser­vice NL said the rail needed to be an­other 12 to 14 inches higher.

He says the ex­tra height poses an even greater safety risk.

“They’re cre­at­ing a risk for kids to re­ally hurt them­selves. Be­cause if they can fall from the el­e­va­tion that’s there now, why do they [Ser­vice NL] want me to put it 12 to 14 inches higher, so that if a kid climbs it, they got fur­ther to fall?”

“We take pride in what we do,” said Pen­ney, “and I’m not do­ing any of this to cause trou­ble. I just want this re­solved, so we can move for­ward.”

Ser­vice NL ap­proved the newly mod­i­fied ramp Mon­day, Oct. 30.

In re­sponse to an in­quiry from The Packet, Ser­vice NL stated they could not speak to the specifics of an in­di­vid­ual sit­u­a­tion, and that rail­ings on wheel­chair ramps are re­quired to meet the spec­i­fi­ca­tions set out in the leg­is­la­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.