Recipient

Charlestown Harbour Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 7 Feb 2016•Latest report 7 Feb 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. 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
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

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.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Charlestown Harbour Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to Square Sail Ventures Limited, now represented here by Charlestown Harbour Limited.

    Cornwall

    AI-generated summary

    Christopher Tristam Broom · 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

    Christopher Broom fell into the water while fishing from the harbour wall at Charlestown on the night of 6 September 2015 and drowned; it was unclear how he fell, and he could not swim. Concerns included there being only one lifebelt, located some distance away and difficult to see, and no lighting at the end of the harbour wall, making the wall’s end and the lifebelt difficult to identify at night.

    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 Charlestown Harbour Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of lighting at the end of the harbour wall

    Wider context from the report

    “The first is that there was only one lifebelt available. This was some distance from where Mr Broom was fishing and was very difficult to spot. Witnesses thought a lifebelt may have helped Mr Broom to survive. The second is that there was no lighting at the end of the harbour wall so that visitors to the harbour at night could not judge where the wall ended and in addition made the aforementioned lifebelt almost invisible. ”
    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 Charlestown Harbour Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient availability and poor visibility of lifebelt provision

    Wider context from the report

    “The first is that there was only one lifebelt available. This was some distance from where Mr Broom was fishing and was very difficult to spot. Witnesses thought a lifebelt may have helped Mr Broom to survive. The second is that there was no lighting at the end of the harbour wall so that visitors to the harbour at night could not judge where the wall ended and in addition made the aforementioned lifebelt almost invisible. ”
    Open source report
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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
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