YOUR VIEW: after Queen’s Park fire, can council explain security decisions?

Image for illustrative purposes. This is not the actual blaze.
Image for illustrative purposes. This is not the actual blaze.

The mindless idiots who set fire to the clubhouse at Queen’s Park must bear the ultimate responsibility, but to my mind the borough council is guilty of failing to safeguard public amenities.

Having spent vast amounts of ratepayers’ money on the construction of the new leisure centre, which occupies the same site as the clubhouse, it would be reasonable to assume security of the site would be a priority. Sadly, this is patently not the case. If the council begs to differ then please would it:

Explain why the Boythorpe Road ‘front gates’, which allow access to both vehicles and pedestrians, are locked when the centre closes but the Park Road ‘rear gates’ remain open? Only a puny picket fence within the Park Road car park ‘protects’ the now fire-ravaged clubhouse, and the centre itself, from anyone intent on vandalism and mayhem. Yes, there is a security camera in the Park Road car park but there are more in the Boythorpe Road car park/entrance. Why is the Park Road car park considered less of a risk than the Boythorpe Road car park/entrance when it patently isn’t, in my view?

Explain why the pedestrian access gate on Park Road is locked after the centre closes? I ask this somewhat sarcastically as there is a gap in the railings adjacent to the gate wide enough for a person to walk through.

Anyone can gain access to the site out of the range of the Park Road car park security camera and after closure by taking advantage of this failing.

Explain why it wasn’t deemed necessary to position a security camera directly overlooking the clubhouse? Surely this would have provided much needed additional security 24/7?

Mike Green

Walton