Recipient

Caister-on-Sea Parish Council

Pin Request correction

First report 25 Jan 2022•Latest report 25 Jan 2022

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Local government · Local authority. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
5stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Caister-on-Sea Parish Council linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Norfolk

    AI-generated summary

    Anthony David RODÈ · 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

    Anthony David RODÈ was a Coastwatch volunteer who fell from a bank onto a concrete path while using his own strimmer to cut overgrown grass on 24 July 2021, sustaining injuries that led to his death. The principal concern was a dispute between Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Caister-On-Sea Parish Council over responsibility for the land, resulting in neither organisation maintaining it and a volunteer undertaking the grass cutting in unsafe circumstances.

    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. The report was sent to Caister-on-Sea Parish Council; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unsafe volunteer grass cutting

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There is a dispute between Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Caister-On-Sea Parish Council as to who is responsible for the stretch of land where Mr Rodè was strimming the grass. 2. Caister-On-Sea Parish Council state that the bank is part of the sea defences and so is the responsibility of the Great Yarmouth Borough Council. 3. Great Yarmouth Borough Council state the land belongs to the Parish Council and so is their responsibility. 4. As a result, neither organisation has taken responsibility for this section of coastline and the grass on the dunes has grown to such a height as to obscure the view of the Coastwatch volunteers along the beach. 5. Accordingly, the Coastwatch volunteers are unable to properly carry out their role to provide the “eyes and ears” along the coast and to assist in the protection and preservation of life at sea along the coastline. In addition, in this case, it has resulted in a volunteer maker taking the decision to cut the grass himself in circumstances when it was not safe to do so ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Caister-on-Sea Parish Council; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to maintain dune grass so that Coastwatch volunteers retain visibility along the beach

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There is a dispute between Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Caister-On-Sea Parish Council as to who is responsible for the stretch of land where Mr Rodè was strimming the grass. 2. Caister-On-Sea Parish Council state that the bank is part of the sea defences and so is the responsibility of the Great Yarmouth Borough Council. 3. Great Yarmouth Borough Council state the land belongs to the Parish Council and so is their responsibility. 4. As a result, neither organisation has taken responsibility for this section of coastline and the grass on the dunes has grown to such a height as to obscure the view of the Coastwatch volunteers along the beach. 5. Accordingly, the Coastwatch volunteers are unable to properly carry out their role to provide the “eyes and ears” along the coast and to assist in the protection and preservation of life at sea along the coastline. In addition, in this case, it has resulted in a volunteer maker taking the decision to cut the grass himself in circumstances when it was not safe to do so ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Caister-on-Sea Parish Council; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to establish responsibility for the coastline section

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There is a dispute between Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Caister-On-Sea Parish Council as to who is responsible for the stretch of land where Mr Rodè was strimming the grass. 2. Caister-On-Sea Parish Council state that the bank is part of the sea defences and so is the responsibility of the Great Yarmouth Borough Council. 3. Great Yarmouth Borough Council state the land belongs to the Parish Council and so is their responsibility. 4. As a result, neither organisation has taken responsibility for this section of coastline and the grass on the dunes has grown to such a height as to obscure the view of the Coastwatch volunteers along the beach. 5. Accordingly, the Coastwatch volunteers are unable to properly carry out their role to provide the “eyes and ears” along the coast and to assist in the protection and preservation of life at sea along the coastline. In addition, in this case, it has resulted in a volunteer maker taking the decision to cut the grass himself in circumstances when it was not safe to do so ”
    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

    Write to and meet shoreline-adjacent organisations and businesses to explain management requirements, permission procedures and collaborative support.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To help reduce the potential for this to happen in future, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Caister-on-Sea Parish Council have agreed to take the following steps to increase public awareness of these issues:”

    Source location

    2022-0021-Response-from-Great-Yarmouth-Borough-Council-and-Caister-On-Sea-Parish-Council_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 January 2022

    Open published response

    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

    Run a social media campaign promoting the shoreline management plan and discouraging independent activity.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To help reduce the potential for this to happen in future, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Caister-on-Sea Parish Council have agreed to take the following steps to increase public awareness of these issues:”

    Source location

    2022-0021-Response-from-Great-Yarmouth-Borough-Council-and-Caister-On-Sea-Parish-Council_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 January 2022

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
20%80%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026