Recipient

Maesteg Comprehensive School

First report 22 Feb 2017•Latest report 22 Feb 2017

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Maintained school. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 5
Stated actions: 6

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

6stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Maesteg Comprehensive School linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

22 Feb2017
South Wales Central
Concerns raised6
1. Failure to provide safe separation between children crossing and other vehicles on the service road
2. Lack of early-stage safety advice in school premises design and construction
3. Lack of accountability among stakeholders for safe school premises design and construction
1. Insufficient staff supervision of children boarding buses
2. Failure to report near misses involving children and vehicles
3. Inadequate service road and bus bay design for end-of-day child transport
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 5
1. Action
  Extend the bus bay to provide adequate parking and prevent buses parking outside the designated area.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Introduce a 5mph speed limit within the school grounds.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Manage pedestrian crossing points on pupils’ safe routes to school pathways.
  Stated completed
1. Action
  Lock down the school premises and halt vehicle movement while pupils exit, board and load onto buses.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Increase staff supervision to provide adequate staffing while children board buses at the end of the day.
  Stated completed
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  School governors had no authority or input regarding the facility’s design or construction.
  Outside remit
AI-generated summary

Ashley Daniel Talbot · 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

Ashley Daniel Talbot, a 15-year-old pupil, was struck by a school minibus shortly after 3pm on 10 December 2014 while running to catch his bus and died at the scene. The concerns identified deficiencies in the school service road and bus bay, inadequate staff supervision, unreported near misses, and a lack of accountability among stakeholders involved in the school’s design and construction.

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 Maesteg Comprehensive School; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide safe separation between children crossing and other vehicles on the service road
Wider context from the report
“(1) The evidence revealed clear deficiencies in relation to the design of the “service road” leading up to the school. This included the construction of a “bus bay” which was inadequate for the number of vehicles required to transport children from the school at the end of the school day. As a direct result of this buses were parked outside the designated bus bay on the service road necessitating children to cross the road which was, at the time of the accident, being used by other vehicles such as staff vehicles, visitors vehicles and school vehicles. This created a highly dangerous situation which resulted in the loss of life. The evidence also revealed that there had been several “near misses” which appeared to have gone unreported. ”
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 Maesteg Comprehensive School; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of early-stage safety advice in school premises design and construction
Wider context from the report
“(3) The wider investigation revealed that there was a clear lack of accountability between the various stakeholders in the design and construction of the school premises to ensure that a safe facility was constructed. Appropriate Safety Advice at an early stage, the evidence showed, would have reduced the likelihood of injury or death. ”
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 Maesteg Comprehensive School; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of accountability among stakeholders for safe school premises design and construction
Wider context from the report
“(3) The wider investigation revealed that there was a clear lack of accountability between the various stakeholders in the design and construction of the school premises to ensure that a safe facility was constructed. Appropriate Safety Advice at an early stage, the evidence showed, would have reduced the likelihood of injury or death. ”
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 Maesteg Comprehensive School; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient staff supervision of children boarding buses
Wider context from the report
“(2) At the time of the accident there was insufficient staff supervision of children boarding buses at the end of the school day. Given the issues with the site, which the evidence indicated had been raised when the school was still under construction and before it opened in 2008, the number and position of staff was inadequate to ensure children boarded their buses safely. ”
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 Maesteg Comprehensive School; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to report near misses involving children and vehicles
Wider context from the report
“(1) The evidence revealed clear deficiencies in relation to the design of the “service road” leading up to the school. This included the construction of a “bus bay” which was inadequate for the number of vehicles required to transport children from the school at the end of the school day. As a direct result of this buses were parked outside the designated bus bay on the service road necessitating children to cross the road which was, at the time of the accident, being used by other vehicles such as staff vehicles, visitors vehicles and school vehicles. This created a highly dangerous situation which resulted in the loss of life. The evidence also revealed that there had been several “near misses” which appeared to have gone unreported. ”
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 Maesteg Comprehensive School; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate service road and bus bay design for end-of-day child transport
Wider context from the report
“(1) The evidence revealed clear deficiencies in relation to the design of the “service road” leading up to the school. This included the construction of a “bus bay” which was inadequate for the number of vehicles required to transport children from the school at the end of the school day. As a direct result of this buses were parked outside the designated bus bay on the service road necessitating children to cross the road which was, at the time of the accident, being used by other vehicles such as staff vehicles, visitors vehicles and school vehicles. This created a highly dangerous situation which resulted in the loss of life. The evidence also revealed that there had been several “near misses” which appeared to have gone unreported. ”
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
Extend the bus bay to provide adequate parking and prevent buses parking outside the designated area.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(1) The bus bay being inadequate for the no. of vehicles. The bus bay has now been extended and now provides adequate parking for all buses, there is now no parking of buses outside of the designated bay. There is a lockdown of the school premises prior to and during pupils exiting the school and loading onto the buses, there is no vehicle movement during this period.”

Source location
2017-0051-Response-by-Maesteg-School
Page 1 · response
Published 5 March 2017
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
Introduce a 5mph speed limit within the school grounds.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(4) Additional measures now in place include a 5mph speed limit within the school grounds. Staff managed pedestrian crossing points where pupils access the school via our safe routes to school pathways.”

Source location
2017-0051-Response-by-Maesteg-School
Page 1 · response
Published 5 March 2017
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
Manage pedestrian crossing points on pupils’ safe routes to school pathways.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(4) Additional measures now in place include a 5mph speed limit within the school grounds. Staff managed pedestrian crossing points where pupils access the school via our safe routes to school pathways.”

Source location
2017-0051-Response-by-Maesteg-School
Page 1 · response
Published 5 March 2017
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
Lock down the school premises and halt vehicle movement while pupils exit, board and load onto buses.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(1) The bus bay being inadequate for the no. of vehicles. The bus bay has now been extended and now provides adequate parking for all buses, there is now no parking of buses outside of the designated bay. There is a lockdown of the school premises prior to and during pupils exiting the school and loading onto the buses, there is no vehicle movement during this period.”

Source location
2017-0051-Response-by-Maesteg-School
Page 1 · response
Published 5 March 2017
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
Increase staff supervision to provide adequate staffing while children board buses at the end of the day.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(2) Staff supervision has been increased and there are now adequate nos. in place when children are boarding the buses at the end of the day.”

Source location
2017-0051-Response-by-Maesteg-School
Page 1 · response
Published 5 March 2017
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
School governors had no authority or input regarding the facility’s design or construction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(3) While I agree with the lack of accountability regarding the construction of a safe facility school governors would have had no input regarding the design or construction.”

Source location
2017-0051-Response-by-Maesteg-School
Page 1 · response
Published 5 March 2017
Open published response

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised6

Failure to provide safe separation between children crossing and other vehicles on the service road

Lack of early-stage safety advice in school premises design and construction

Lack of accountability among stakeholders for safe school premises design and construction

Insufficient staff supervision of children boarding buses

Failure to report near misses involving children and vehicles

Inadequate service road and bus bay design for end-of-day child transport

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

Actions described in response 5

Respondent positions 1