Core Highways Group Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company

Pin Request correction

First report 6 Apr 2026•Latest report 6 Apr 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

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

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

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Allan STEVENSON · 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

    Allan Stevenson, a 73-year-old cyclist, died from injuries sustained in a road traffic collision involving an HGV at a roundabout with a temporary traffic management system. The inquest concluded that his death was contributed to by the temporary road layout. Concerns included the flipping of a complex traffic management plan without an enhanced safety review, inadequate or missing signage, limited escalation and inspection processes, delayed responses to reported defects, and the absence of spare signage for immediate changes.

    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 Core Highways Group Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide Network Inspectors with information about deviations from the original temporary traffic scheme plan

    Wider context from the report

    “5. I am concerned that there is no apparent system in place to inform Network Inspectors that a traffic scheme has been laid out, contrary to the original plan that was in place (as in this case when a plan has been flipped). As a result of the Network Inspector having no access to, or sight of the original plan, he was unaware that the original plan had been flipped, unaware of the suspension of the cycle lanes approaching the roundabout and unaware that the special signage deemed necessary in the original plan, was completely absent in the flipped scheme that was put in place. As such the Network Inspector’s ability to check the safety of the flipped scheme was seriously compromised. ”
    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 Core Highways Group Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of safety escalation when site operatives identify scheme safety issues

    Wider context from the report

    “2. I am concerned that there is no apparent safety escalation process, when as in this case a relatively junior Traffic Management Operative identifies a safety issue with a scheme once it has begun operations. ”
    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 Core Highways Group Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a defect-notice mechanism for dangerous special-signage deficiencies

    Wider context from the report

    “3. I am concerned that the correct ‘special signage’ that would have undoubtedly made this scheme safer, was not even considered in this case (as a direct result of the flipping of the original plan). I am further concerned that Network Inspectors have no power to declare a special sign (or the lack of a special sign) as a defect, as these signs fall outside the mandatory signage shown in the Red Book. As such, even if a Network Inspector identified what they believed to be a dangerous temporary traffic management scheme, any danger being caused by the lack of special signage (or caused by special signage on site that is incorrect), there is no mechanism available for a Network Inspector to issue a defect notice to raise their concern. ”
    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 Core Highways Group Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of enhanced safety review for complex temporary road traffic plans flipped at short notice

    Wider context from the report

    “1. I am concerned that what was agreed by witnesses to be a complex temporary road traffic plan, can be ‘flipped’ on the ground on the day it is installed without any identifiable process being in place to ensure the scheme is subsequently safe. The court heard that some schemes (such as a single carriage way scheme controlled by only two sets of traffic lights) were straight forward to flip if required, but that no additional or enhanced review system was in place when a complex scheme needed to be flipped at short notice. ”
    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 Core Highways Group Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delayed and indirect replacement pathway for temporary traffic management signage

    Wider context from the report

    “4. I am concerned of that the only recourse for a Network Inspector to get temporary traffic management signage replaced, is an apparently protected procedural route involving multiple individuals remote from the site, with the Network Inspector having limited or no contact with the Traffic Management Operatives at the site itself. I am further concerned that there is no requirement for spare signage to be carried on vehicles used for setting up the schemes, for obvious or frequently occurring errors identified on temporary road traffic schemes (such as in this case the road narrow signs being the wrong way around). ”
    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 Core Highways Group Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to consider required special signage after a temporary traffic plan is flipped

    Wider context from the report

    “3. I am concerned that the correct ‘special signage’ that would have undoubtedly made this scheme safer, was not even considered in this case (as a direct result of the flipping of the original plan). I am further concerned that Network Inspectors have no power to declare a special sign (or the lack of a special sign) as a defect, as these signs fall outside the mandatory signage shown in the Red Book. As such, even if a Network Inspector identified what they believed to be a dangerous temporary traffic management scheme, any danger being caused by the lack of special signage (or caused by special signage on site that is incorrect), there is no mechanism available for a Network Inspector to issue a defect notice to raise their concern. ”
    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 Core Highways Group Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to answer the temporary traffic management defect line promptly

    Wider context from the report

    “6. I am concerned that the ‘defect line’ operated by Anglian Water was not answered or responded to on the day of this incident, adding unnecessary delay to the changes required to the scheme signage. It is acknowledged that the signage defect identified on the 24th October 2022 would not have affected the tragic outcome of this case, however that may not be the case in future incidents ”
    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 Core Highways Group Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of spare signage for correcting identified temporary road traffic scheme errors

    Wider context from the report

    “4. I am concerned of that the only recourse for a Network Inspector to get temporary traffic management signage replaced, is an apparently protected procedural route involving multiple individuals remote from the site, with the Network Inspector having limited or no contact with the Traffic Management Operatives at the site itself. I am further concerned that there is no requirement for spare signage to be carried on vehicles used for setting up the schemes, for obvious or frequently occurring errors identified on temporary road traffic schemes (such as in this case the road narrow signs being the wrong way around). ”
    Open source report
Back to top

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