Page:Hillsborough Taylor Interim Report Cm765.pdf/32

 '''CHAPTER 8 LACK OF FIXED CAPACITIES FOR THE PENS'''

In 1981, when the terrace was divided into three areas, Dr Eastwood gave the Club the figure of 2,200 capacity for the centre pen. He based this on the Green Guide, making such allowances as he thought right. No doubt the numbers could have been counted in via the turnstiles if only that pen was in use or if such pens as were in use were filled sequentially, but not otherwise.

After the 1985 changes, Dr Eastwood did not himself give any figures for the new pens 3 and 4. Someone on his staff however split the figure 2,200 into 1,200 for pen 3 and 1,000 for pen 4. Those figures did not even take account of the fact that pen 5 had been carved out of pen 4 which was bound to have a reducing effect on capacity. Nevertheless, the figures of 1,200 and 1,000 were put on a drawing emanating from Eastwood and Partners and the figures have been notionally regarded since as applicable by the Club and the police. They are in fact too high.

Dr Nicholson, at the Research and Laboratory Services Division of the Health and Safety Executive, has calculated that the figures for pens 3 and 4 respectively would be 1,015 and 1,036 if the strength and spacing of the crush barriers had complied with the Green Guide. But they did not.

Departures from the Green Guide

In pen 3, four out of five gaps in the lines of crush barriers do not conform with paragraph 115 of the Green Guide (1986). In pen 4, nine out of ten do not conform. In particular, the spans taken out of the barriers in pen 3 in 1985 left gaps well in excess of the maximum of 1.4 metres prescribed. One gap was 57% wider than the Green Guide maximum. Moreover, that gap was in direct diagonal line from the mouth of the tunnel to the barrier which collapsed. Dr Eastwood justified these larger gaps by the absence of gangways. Fans had to be able to get in and out and standard gaps tended to get blocked up. The effect of his reasoning was that the absence of gangways, recognised as having a safety function, led to the sacrifice of a second safety feature, namely gaps of strictly limited width.

Again, the removal of barrier 144 was bound, as Dr Eastwood conceded, to affect capacity. In fact it did more, as I shall indicate later.

Capacity should also have taken account of two further departures from the Green Guide. If, as was the case, the perimeter gates were not regarded as exits, some 40% of those in pens 3 and 4 were more than 12 metres from an exit (and there was no gangway) contrary to the aim of paragraph 96. Four out of five of the crush barriers in pen 3 and six out of nine in pen 4 were below the height prescribed in paragraph 110. These were the old barriers which had been repaired and plated where their bases had corroded and fresh concrete had been applied, raising the level of the steps. The point is not academic since, in the event, many fans were bent painfully over barriers under great pressure.

Dr Nicholson calculated that when all relevant factors regarding the configuration and the Green Guide are taken into account, the maximum capacity for pen 3 should have been 822 and for pen 4, 871.

Safety Certificate

Whatever should have been the maximum capacities for pens 3 and 4, the fact is that no figures at all in respect of them were put into the Safety Certificate. Despite all the changes in layout of the fences and barriers, the two figures, 2,900 for the north-west terrace and 7,200 for the west terrace, have remained as the only maxima with which the Club has to comply.

Section 2(1) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 provides (so far as is relevant):

""A Safety Certificate shall contain such terms and conditions as the local authority consider necessary or expedient to secure reasonable safety at the stadium when it is in use...""

Section 2(2) provided (so far as is relevant):

""Without prejudice to sub-section (1) above, a Safety Certificate

(a) shall specify the maximum number of spectators to be admitted to the stadium;

(b) may specify the maximum number to be admitted to different parts of it;

(c) shall include terms and conditions-

... (iii) as to the number, strength and situation of any crush barriers."" Rh