National Water Safety Forum

Private and voluntary organisations · Transport sector body

Request correction

First report 24 Jul 2017•Latest report 24 Jul 2017

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
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 4
Stated actions: 10

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from National Water Safety Forum linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

24 Jul2017
East Sussex
Concerns raised4
1. Visitors’ language difficulties and lack of experience with the sea
2. Failure to maintain effective public communication about coastal safety
3. Lack of formal governance and control of coastal risk management
1. Insufficient education and awareness of coastal dangers
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Promote beach-safety best-practice examples through the Forum’s network, communications and conferences.
2. Action
  Review the leadership arrangements for promoting strategic risk assessments and plans across recreational activity organisations.
3. Action
  Use the Forum’s network to promote awareness of water risks and influence public behaviour.
1. Action
  Influence communities to complete community-level risk assessments and establish water safety plans.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Landowners are responsible for assessing and controlling risks, including providing identified lifeguard services, within their jurisdictions.
  Redirects responsibility
1. Position
  The Forum lacks legal, regulatory and enforcement powers to impose statutory beach safety governance or risk management requirements.
  Outside remit
AI-generated summary

GUSTAVO SILVA DA CRUZ and 6 others · 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

On 24 June 2016, Gustavo Silva da Cruz and Mohit Dupar entered the sea at Camber Sands; Da Cruz's body was later washed ashore, and Dupar was brought unconscious to the beach and died at Ashford Hospital on 28 July 2016. On 24 August 2016, five young Sri Lankan men entered the sea as the tide came in and all died, with their bodies recovered that day or after the tide receded. The report raises concerns about the lack of formal governance and risk management for beach safety, including lifeguard provision, public education, communication, resources, and whether restrictions on beach use should be considered.

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 National Water Safety Forum; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Visitors’ language difficulties and lack of experience with the sea
Wider context from the report
“(b) There appears to be no formal governance or control of risk management requirements. Should the present, virtually voluntarily, structure be examined? Could perhaps the Marine and Coastguard Agency, who have enforcement powers akin to those of the Police, be given more resources and take a bigger role than they currently have? The problem is an increasing one. The evidence suggested that on a pleasant hot summer’s day 25,000 to 30,000 people visit Camber Sands, many of whom have language difficulties and do not speak much English, and many others of whom have no experience of going into the sea. The question is whether leaving matters to a charity is really the best basis of a structure intended to spearhead a possibly overdue attempt to modernise, harmonise, and improve the safety regime, given so many changes at Camber. (c) Changes include:- (i) possible climate change effects, (ii) differences in ethnic origins and language spoken by current visitors, (iii) constant and fast changes in means of communication with the public, which everybody at these inquests agreed to be crucial to the necessary educative process, (iv) improvement, considered vital, of education and awareness of coastal dangers amongst children and those who live far from the sea. (d) Inevitably resource and monetary considerations affect decision making by those charged with safeguarding people like the seven who died here. Perhaps that is another reason why a review of the current system may well be needed. ”
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 National Water Safety Forum; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to maintain effective public communication about coastal safety
Wider context from the report
“(b) There appears to be no formal governance or control of risk management requirements. Should the present, virtually voluntarily, structure be examined? Could perhaps the Marine and Coastguard Agency, who have enforcement powers akin to those of the Police, be given more resources and take a bigger role than they currently have? The problem is an increasing one. The evidence suggested that on a pleasant hot summer’s day 25,000 to 30,000 people visit Camber Sands, many of whom have language difficulties and do not speak much English, and many others of whom have no experience of going into the sea. The question is whether leaving matters to a charity is really the best basis of a structure intended to spearhead a possibly overdue attempt to modernise, harmonise, and improve the safety regime, given so many changes at Camber. (c) Changes include:- (i) possible climate change effects, (ii) differences in ethnic origins and language spoken by current visitors, (iii) constant and fast changes in means of communication with the public, which everybody at these inquests agreed to be crucial to the necessary educative process, (iv) improvement, considered vital, of education and awareness of coastal dangers amongst children and those who live far from the sea. (d) Inevitably resource and monetary considerations affect decision making by those charged with safeguarding people like the seven who died here. Perhaps that is another reason why a review of the current system may well be needed. ”
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 National Water Safety Forum; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of formal governance and control of coastal risk management
Wider context from the report
“(b) There appears to be no formal governance or control of risk management requirements. Should the present, virtually voluntarily, structure be examined? Could perhaps the Marine and Coastguard Agency, who have enforcement powers akin to those of the Police, be given more resources and take a bigger role than they currently have? The problem is an increasing one. The evidence suggested that on a pleasant hot summer’s day 25,000 to 30,000 people visit Camber Sands, many of whom have language difficulties and do not speak much English, and many others of whom have no experience of going into the sea. The question is whether leaving matters to a charity is really the best basis of a structure intended to spearhead a possibly overdue attempt to modernise, harmonise, and improve the safety regime, given so many changes at Camber. (c) Changes include:- (i) possible climate change effects, (ii) differences in ethnic origins and language spoken by current visitors, (iii) constant and fast changes in means of communication with the public, which everybody at these inquests agreed to be crucial to the necessary educative process, (iv) improvement, considered vital, of education and awareness of coastal dangers amongst children and those who live far from the sea. (d) Inevitably resource and monetary considerations affect decision making by those charged with safeguarding people like the seven who died here. Perhaps that is another reason why a review of the current system may well be needed. ”
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 National Water Safety Forum; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient education and awareness of coastal dangers
Wider context from the report
“(b) There appears to be no formal governance or control of risk management requirements. Should the present, virtually voluntarily, structure be examined? Could perhaps the Marine and Coastguard Agency, who have enforcement powers akin to those of the Police, be given more resources and take a bigger role than they currently have? The problem is an increasing one. The evidence suggested that on a pleasant hot summer’s day 25,000 to 30,000 people visit Camber Sands, many of whom have language difficulties and do not speak much English, and many others of whom have no experience of going into the sea. The question is whether leaving matters to a charity is really the best basis of a structure intended to spearhead a possibly overdue attempt to modernise, harmonise, and improve the safety regime, given so many changes at Camber. (c) Changes include:- (i) possible climate change effects, (ii) differences in ethnic origins and language spoken by current visitors, (iii) constant and fast changes in means of communication with the public, which everybody at these inquests agreed to be crucial to the necessary educative process, (iv) improvement, considered vital, of education and awareness of coastal dangers amongst children and those who live far from the sea. (d) Inevitably resource and monetary considerations affect decision making by those charged with safeguarding people like the seven who died here. Perhaps that is another reason why a review of the current system may well be needed. ”
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
Promote beach-safety best-practice examples through the Forum’s network, communications and conferences.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The forum’s work is helping to raise awareness of beach safety and through our network, communication and conference channels we are promoting examples of best practice. Our real strength and greatest opportunity is to influence others and this is what we are doing.”

Source location
Response from National Water Safety Forum
Page 3 · response
Published 27 March 2023
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
Review the leadership arrangements for promoting strategic risk assessments and plans across recreational activity organisations.

Verbatim wording from the response
“All recreational activity organisations should have a clear strategic risk assessment and plans that address key risks”

Source location
Response from National Water Safety Forum
Page 3 · response
Published 27 March 2023
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
Use the Forum’s network to promote awareness of water risks and influence public behaviour.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Increase awareness of everyday risks in, on and around the water”

Source location
Response from National Water Safety Forum
Page 3 · response
Published 27 March 2023
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
Influence communities to complete community-level risk assessments and establish water safety plans.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Every community with water risks should have a community level risk assessment and water safety plan”

Source location
Response from National Water Safety Forum
Page 2 · response
Published 27 March 2023
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
Landowners are responsible for assessing and controlling risks, including providing identified lifeguard services, within their jurisdictions.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The forum believes that governance and risk management requirements for beach safety are not satisfactory. There should be an increased onus and clarification for local authorities, beach owners and operators (generally referred to as ‘landowners’), to ensure that they have in place a beach safety governance framework and current risk assessment for their area of responsibility and this should be a statutory obligation especially where their beach facilities are advertised as available to the public. The forum would support a review of the governance and risk management arrangements for beach safety in order to answer the question ‘who has responsibility for beach safety and how is that responsibility met?’ The answer should set out the legal and duty of care requirements.”

Source location
Response from National Water Safety Forum
Page 2 · response
Published 27 March 2023
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
The Forum lacks legal, regulatory and enforcement powers to impose statutory beach safety governance or risk management requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Each year a drowning report is published providing the UK’s definitive record of drowning fatalities and causal analysis. This intelligence and further research commissioned by the Forum informed the development of the UK’s first National Drowning Prevention Strategy published in February 2016 (www.nationalwatersafety.org.uk/strategy). With the support of UK Government a strategic target was set to reduce drowning in the UK by 50% by 2026. The Forum does not have any legal, regulatory or enforcement powers vested in it. In response to your letter of 24 July the NWSF co-ordinating group has the following comments:”

Source location
Response from National Water Safety Forum
Page 1 · response
Published 27 March 2023
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 raised4

Visitors’ language difficulties and lack of experience with the sea

Failure to maintain effective public communication about coastal safety

Lack of formal governance and control of coastal risk management

Insufficient education and awareness of coastal dangers

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.4

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

Actions described in response 4

Respondent positions 2