04-17-2016, 06:42 PM
(04-17-2016, 03:23 PM)Canard Wrote: There is a huge ditch between the tracks and the path. Surely this is sufficient? I like the garden/shrub idea.
The point is - this obviously can't just be left up to GrandLinq's discression - they'll just pick whatever's cheapest (ie, chain link fence) and leave it at that. Jane's response on Twitter has me awfully worried that this has completely flown under the radar of council, too.
No fence at all is cheaper. And we have sufficient examples from other jurisdictions that I feel comfortable asserting provisionally that if somebody believes a fence is needed, they haven’t investigated properly. It’s too easy to take the first answer from somebody and elevate it to the status of a rule that must be followed absolutely without investigating what the real rules are and what possibilities might exist for obtaining an exception or using a creative interpretation.
At work I once asked about the possibility of locking a corridor. The answer I got (from somebody who is not themselves any sort of expert on fire code rules) implied that they had asked Plant Ops, got a “no”, and assumed it was for fire code reasons. The point isn’t whether locking it really was impossible because of the fire code (although I don’t believe that). The point is that the person I spoke to assumed that Plant Ops’ initial response was based on a valid interpretation of the fire code and wasn’t alterable.
Similarly here, it is possible that asking the question one way leads to the answer that the corridor needs to be fenced, but it’s absolutely clear this is not needed for safety, only for rule-following, so it seems likely that asking the question a different way could lead to a different result.
I think I’m preaching to the choir again. Thanks for raising this issue — let’s hope for a good outcome.