Recurring concern

Unreliable ambulance access through road closures and diversions

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 23 Mar 2016•Latest report 2 Oct 2018

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in arrangements that enable ambulance crews to reach emergencies through or around road closures and diversions, including route planning, alternative access, emergency authority to cross closure signs, dissemination of that authority and operational briefing or escalation.

Not included

Excludes general ambulance attendance delays, hospital handover delays and ambulance-capacity shortages where road closures, diversions or emergency crossing arrangements are not the deficient control.
Excludes ordinary road maintenance, traffic congestion and road-safety hazards unrelated to preserving ambulance access during an emergency.
Excludes access failures at the destination premises after ambulance crews have reached the relevant area.
Excludes generic emergency-service communication or training deficiencies unless they directly impair ambulance access through road closures or diversions.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2016–2018
Stated actions: 1

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.

Leeds City Council1

North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust1

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.

2 Oct2018
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to ensure ambulance crews understand emergency authority to cross road closure signs
2. Failure to maintain emergency vehicle access during public events
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
  Continually review event road closures to ensure they remain appropriate, minimal and safe.
  Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Stated in progress
Respondent positions 3
1. Position
  Ambulance crews do not need event-morning briefings because Emergency Operations Centre directions provide the most appropriate response information at the time.
  Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  Existing event management plans, designated crossing points and trained marshals sufficiently address emergency vehicle access and temporary event stoppages.
  Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Existing arrangements considered sufficient
2. Position
  Replacing road-closure signs could weaken their prohibition and create safety risks; existing signs should remain under current legislation with controlled emergency access measures.
  Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Disputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Joshua Lee Edwards · 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

Joshua Lee Edwards, aged 19, became unwell in Leeds after taking ecstasy and cocaine and died in hospital on 15 May 2017 despite treatment. The ambulance was delayed by road closures for the Leeds 10K run, and concerns were raised that repeated calls from police did not lead to escalation and that ambulance crews were unclear about crossing road-closure signs in an emergency.

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
Failure to ensure ambulance crews understand emergency authority to cross road closure signs
Wider context from the report
“(2) Evidence taken at the Inquest indicated that ambulance crews were unclear as to whether they were entitled to cross ‘road closure’ signs in an emergency. Clarification of the Ambulance Service authority to do so in an emergency has been given, but has not yet been circulated to all ambulance crews. This needs to be done on the morning of such events. Ambulance crews should be reminded of this power by way of a refresher briefing. Similar considerations arise in relation to the Fire and Rescue Service. ”
Source location
Joshua Lee Edwards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to maintain emergency vehicle access during public events
Wider context from the report
“(1) The ambulance despatched to the scene encountered roads closed for the Leeds 10K run that day. It then navigated a route around the course, thus encountering a delay in reaching the casualty. The Police Officers at the scene telephoned three times to ask where the ambulance was but this did not result in the situation being escalated in the control room at Yorkshire Ambulance Service. ”
Source location
Joshua Lee Edwards · 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
Continually review event road closures to ensure they remain appropriate, minimal and safe.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Whilst some road closures are inevitable with the events in the city, we are also continually reviewing these to make sure they are appropriate, kept to a minimum and are as safe as possible.”

Source location
2018-0335-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 March 2019
Open published response
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
Ambulance crews do not need event-morning briefings because Emergency Operations Centre directions provide the most appropriate response information at the time.

Verbatim wording from the response
“These actions taken by the Ambulance Service provide a more secure outcome than simply briefing the Ambulance crews on the morning of the event. Ambulance crews may become available to respond to emergencies during shift changes or brought to the location from outside of the area at short notice. Individual response direction from the Emergency Operations Centre will ensure that crews are informed of the most appropriate response at the time in a more holistic way.”

Source location
2018-0335-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 March 2019
Open published response
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 event management plans, designated crossing points and trained marshals sufficiently address emergency vehicle access and temporary event stoppages.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Every major event such as the half-marathon and Leeds 10k run includes an Event Management Plan which sets out the process for emergency responses, emergency vehicle access and the training of Marshalls. Emergency routes are agreed with emergency services during the planning for each event. Specific locations to cross the routes are designated. These are used wherever possible. Other locations can be used under the control of Event Control. All road closure points are staffed with marshals capable of assisting access and halting events in the case of an emergency.”

Source location
2018-0335-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 March 2019
Open published response
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
Replacing road-closure signs could weaken their prohibition and create safety risks; existing signs should remain under current legislation with controlled emergency access measures.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Road closure signs during events are placed for the safety of event participants and road users alike. In the current climate of vehicle incursion we would not seek to weaken their prohibition of vehicles by allowing anyone to confuse or misinterpret the message to suggest that any form of access is permitted. In doing so there will always be road users who interpret the signs to their advantage. In discussions with emergency services and traffic regulation colleagues I feel it is preferable to maintain the road closure signing as it is set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions legislation and take other measures such as those described above. This will provide authority to those who legitimately need access in a controlled way. This will ensure that any delays to genuine emergencies are minimised and the safety of the event participant is not compromised.”

Source location
2018-0335-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 March 2019
Open published response
23 Mar2016
Teesside
Concerns raised1
1. Road closures and diversions affecting ambulance crew access
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

Mandeep SINGH · 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

Mandeep SINGH consumed high levels of alcohol and was found unconscious at home at approximately midnight after his wife found him lying on the floor. Although the ambulance call was assessed as R1 with a target response time of 8 minutes, the ambulance arrived after 27 minutes, and Mr Singh died in the ambulance. The investigation identified severe demand and staff shortages, as well as road closures and diversions, as factors in the delay.

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
Road closures and diversions affecting ambulance crew access
Wider context from the report
“A root cause analysis comprehensive and independent investigation report undertaken by the North East Ambulance Service discloses that the reasons for the delay of the ambulance arrival include severe demand and shortages in the division. Road closures and diversions did not assist the crews. ”
Source location
Mandeep SINGH · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised2

Failure to ensure ambulance crews understand emergency authority to cross road closure signs

Failure to maintain emergency vehicle access during public events

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

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

Concerns raised1

Road closures and diversions affecting ambulance crew access

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 3