Recurring concern

Inadequate outdoor safety lighting

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 26 Feb 2014•Latest report 28 Nov 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes reports identifying absent, poor, uneven or obstructed lighting in outdoor areas such as roads, crossings, railway environs, venue grounds and other public-access locations.

Not included

Excludes deficiencies limited to warning signs, barriers, fencing, vegetation or other controls unless inadequate lighting is itself identified.
Excludes indoor or domestic lighting arrangements that are not part of an outdoor public or operational safety setting.
Excludes general darkness or poor visibility where no lighting deficiency or lighting control is identified.

Reports: 44
Individual concerns: 47
Date range: 2014–2025
Stated actions: 26

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

National Highways6

Recipient name withheld5

Durham County Council4

Cumbria County Council3

Department for Transport3

Warwickshire County Council3

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council2

Bradford City Council2

Essex Highways2

Network Rail2

Transport for London2

Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council2

Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable Trust1

Amey plc1

Balfour Beatty A50 DBFO route management1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

8 May2014
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
1. Poor illumination of steps
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Lighting the location is not considered helpful because it would create dangerous light-dark contrast and lighting all riverbank paths is impractical and inappropriate.
  Stated by Durham County CouncilNo action considered necessary
AI-generated summary

Sopeluwa Babatunde Peters · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Sopeluwa Babatunde Peters died by drowning in the River Wear on 30 October 2013, after likely falling into the river while descending steep steps in Drury Lane, Durham City, while under the influence of alcohol. Concerns included poor illumination, the absence of a handrail, the steepness of the steps, and a low riverside wall that provided limited safety protection.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Poor illumination of steps
Wider context from the report
“(1) The steps are steep, poorly illuminated, with no handrail and on the evidence are said to be particularly difficult to negotiate at any time even more so by an individual who may be under the influence of alcohol. The wall at the riverside on the path opposite the steps/alleyway is only 690 mm’s high and does not create much of a safety barrier. ”
Source location
Sopeluwa Babatunde Peters · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Lighting the location is not considered helpful because it would create dangerous light-dark contrast and lighting all riverbank paths is impractical and inappropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Whilst lighting the location may assist, it would result in a lit area leading to unlit riverside paths, creating greater contrast between areas of light and dark. It is felt that lighting all the riverbank paths would be both impractical and inappropriate due to the detrimental effect on the setting of the World Heritage Site. On balance it is not considered helpful to light this location.”

Source location
2014-0206-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 May 2014
Open published response
1 May2014
North Yorkshire (West)
Concerns raised1
1. Poor lighting in the area of the bridge
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Ian Sidney Martin · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Ian Sidney Martin fell on wet, slippery and worn steps on a canal bridge while travelling from Skipton Bus Station to meet his wife, sustaining a head injury from which he died in hospital later that day. The principal concerns were the dangerous condition of the steps and poor lighting around the bridge.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Poor lighting in the area of the bridge
Wider context from the report
“(2) The poor lighting in the area of the bridge. ”
Source location
Ian Sidney Martin · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
24 Mar2014
Warwickshire
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of street lighting on the road
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Carry out a feasibility study for a separated footpath between Walsingham Drive and Sutherland Drive, including costs, benefits, speed limits and lighting.
  Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated planned
AI-generated summary

Sean Andrew Morley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Sean Andrew Morley was struck and killed by a motor vehicle while crossing the A444 Bedworth By-pass on foot between 3am and 4am on 2 September 2012. The report raised concerns that the road was regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists despite having no warning signs, street lighting, barriers, or other protective features, and that these conditions created a risk of further fatal collisions.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of street lighting on the road
Wider context from the report
“(1) I heard evidence that the stretch of the A444 where Sean died is regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists, who walk or ride on the grass verge at the side of the carriageway or on the edge of the carriageway itself. (2) Since Sean’s death, there has been a further incident on the same stretch of road where a pedestrian was struck by a car. Fortunately, the injuries were not fatal. (3) There are no signs warning pedestrians or cyclists of the dangers of using the road. There are no street lights. The speed limit on the road is 70mph. There is no barrier or other protective features between the vehicular traffic and pedestrians. (4) These factors strongly suggest that there is a risk of further fatal collisions between vehicles and other road users. ”
Source location
Sean Andrew Morley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Carry out a feasibility study for a separated footpath between Walsingham Drive and Sutherland Drive, including costs, benefits, speed limits and lighting.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. Evidence was also given that proposals to introduce a footpath to enable pedestrians to walk between Walsingham Drive and Sutherland Drive, separated from the fast moving traffic would need to be properly investigated through a feasibility study. A feasibility study is to be carried out by consultants on behalf of the County Council and the level of footfall provided by the CCTV survey will feed into this study, giving a clear understanding of the level of usage such a facility would attract. This study will consider the cost and benefit of the introduction of a footpath, given the limitations of the road safety budget. Included in the study will be the speed limit for the road and other factors such as street lighting etc. The feasibility study is expected to be completed by the end of September 2014.”

Source location
Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 2014
Open published response
26 Feb2014
North Northumberland
Concerns raised1
1. Inadequate lighting and visibility at the pedestrian crossing
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Existing lighting and signing meet current standards, so no immediate action is required.
  Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Samuel Eric Shaw · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Samuel Eric Shaw, aged 70, died after being struck by a southbound ambulance while crossing the A1 at Haggerston on 29 October 2013. Concerns included the absence of warning signs and a central pedestrian refuge, poor lighting, and the need for pedestrians to cross both lanes of a 60 mph road from the bus stop to Haggerston.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate lighting and visibility at the pedestrian crossing
Wider context from the report
“At Haggerston Holiday Park, adjoining the east side of the A1 trunk road there are hundreds of caravans located and several hundreds of people come to stay and visit regularly. Access from public transport is by buses which also stop at various towns and villages along the A1 Trunk road. The road is the main strategic highway route between Scotland and England. The speed limit at Haggerston is 60 miles per hour and those travelling north on buses have to set down on the west side and cross both lanes of the A1 Trunk road traffic, through an unlit area to reach Haggerston. The visibility of pedestrians on the road for drivers travelling at up to 60 mph is restricted because of the need to use dipped headlights. There is no warning sign for motorists travelling south to alert drivers of pedestrians crossing the road. There is no central refuge for pedestrians crossing the road at the crossing point. ”
Source location
Samuel Eric Shaw · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing lighting and signing meet current standards, so no immediate action is required.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I have concluded that the lighting and signing provision meets current standards and therefore no immediate action is required to address your concerns.”

Source location
Response from Highways Agency
Page 3 · response
Published 26 February 2014
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Poor illumination of steps

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Poor lighting in the area of the bridge

Concerns raised1

Lack of street lighting on the road

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Concerns raised1

Inadequate lighting and visibility at the pedestrian crossing

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 1