Recipient

Salford City Council

First report 22 Nov 2017•Latest report 11 Sep 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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

Reports: 3
Published responses: 67%
Concerns addressed: 2
Stated actions: 2

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.

67%published responses found

2stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Salford City Council linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

11 Sep2024
Manchester West
Concerns raised3
1. Failure to prevent continued use of an unsafe foot bridge as an alternative route
2. Failure to provide bridge barriers preventing pedestrians from easily climbing over and falling from the bridge
3. Failure to apply a clear basis for including foot bridges in barrier safety works
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  National Highways is responsible for considering remedial works because the bridge structure, parapets and retaining walls are its assets.
  Redirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Emma Victoria HARPER · 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

Emma Victoria HARPER died on 4 May 2024 after falling from a footbridge onto a crash barrier beside the M602 motorway; the inquest concluded that her death was suicide. Concerns were raised that the bridge had not been included in works to increase barrier heights or otherwise prevent people at risk from falling onto the motorway, and that the basis for its exclusion was unclear.

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 Salford City Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to prevent continued use of an unsafe foot bridge as an alternative route
Wider context from the report
“1. During the course of evidence it was stated that the foot bridge which the deceased fell from had not been considered suitable for amendments to be made to the level of barrier which would prevent a pedestrian crossing the bridge from easily climbing over and falling onto the highway below. 2. Other bridges in the locality were considered and selected for an increase in the height of the barrier or other works to prevent the risk of falling from the bridge onto the M602 motorway. 3. It was unclear on what basis the foot bridge that the deceased fell from has been excluded from such works and there is a risk that this bridge may still be accessed by people who may be at risk of falling as an alternative to other bridges were works had been undertaken in the locality. ”
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 Salford City Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide bridge barriers preventing pedestrians from easily climbing over and falling from the bridge
Wider context from the report
“1. During the course of evidence it was stated that the foot bridge which the deceased fell from had not been considered suitable for amendments to be made to the level of barrier which would prevent a pedestrian crossing the bridge from easily climbing over and falling onto the highway below. 2. Other bridges in the locality were considered and selected for an increase in the height of the barrier or other works to prevent the risk of falling from the bridge onto the M602 motorway. 3. It was unclear on what basis the foot bridge that the deceased fell from has been excluded from such works and there is a risk that this bridge may still be accessed by people who may be at risk of falling as an alternative to other bridges were works had been undertaken in the locality. ”
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 Salford City Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to apply a clear basis for including foot bridges in barrier safety works
Wider context from the report
“1. During the course of evidence it was stated that the foot bridge which the deceased fell from had not been considered suitable for amendments to be made to the level of barrier which would prevent a pedestrian crossing the bridge from easily climbing over and falling onto the highway below. 2. Other bridges in the locality were considered and selected for an increase in the height of the barrier or other works to prevent the risk of falling from the bridge onto the M602 motorway. 3. It was unclear on what basis the foot bridge that the deceased fell from has been excluded from such works and there is a risk that this bridge may still be accessed by people who may be at risk of falling as an alternative to other bridges were works had been undertaken in the locality. ”
Open source report
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
National Highways is responsible for considering remedial works because the bridge structure, parapets and retaining walls are its assets.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Salford City Council have been in discussion with National Highways regarding this matter. They confirmed that the bridge structure, parapets and retaining walls on ████████ are National Highway assets. As such we believe they are looking into the feasibility of remedial works at this location following this recent incident.”

Source location
Response from Salford Council
Page 1 · response
Published 18 September 2024
Open published response
13 May2022
Manchester West
Concerns raised3
1. Driver distraction at a busy junction with traffic travelling at 50mph
2. Restricted visibility for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way
3. Lack of a footpath on one side of Cadishead Way
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Investigate the junction's collision circumstances, operation, collision history and traffic data with Greater Manchester Police.
  Stated completed
AI-generated summary

Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · 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

Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl died from injuries sustained in a road traffic collision at the junction of Cadishead Way and Fairhills Road, Irlam, on 23 June 2021. The concerns related to the junction’s busy layout, a 50 mph speed limit, restricted visibility caused by the bend, bridge, trees and bushes, and the absence of traffic signals.

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 Salford City Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Driver distraction at a busy junction with traffic travelling at 50mph
Wider context from the report
“1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- a) The junction is very busy allowing access to industrial and retail units, including Tesco, Lidl and Screwfix off Fairhills Road, Irlam. b) Cadishead Way, Irlam is a very busy designated ‘A’ road, namely the A57 road, which is an access road towards Manchester in one direction and the M6 motorway in the other direction. c) At the junction there is no footpath on one side of Cadishead Way and approaching the junction with Fairhills Road from the direction of the M6 motorway there is a bend, a bridge, trees and bushes, all of which obscure and affect the line of vision of vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam. d) The junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam is very busy with vehicles turning into both Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way from both directions, which could cause distractions to drivers, particularly a driver exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way with vehicles travelling at 50mph along Cadishead Way and the restricted view. 2) I request that you conduct a review of the following issues in relation to the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam: a) The layout of the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. b) The speed limit of 50mph on Cadishead Way in the area of the junction with Fairhills Road, Irlam. c) The restricted views of vehicles pulling out of Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam, particularly caused by trees, bushes and undergrowth. d) The provision of traffic signals at the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. ”
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 Salford City Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Restricted visibility for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way
Wider context from the report
“1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- a) The junction is very busy allowing access to industrial and retail units, including Tesco, Lidl and Screwfix off Fairhills Road, Irlam. b) Cadishead Way, Irlam is a very busy designated ‘A’ road, namely the A57 road, which is an access road towards Manchester in one direction and the M6 motorway in the other direction. c) At the junction there is no footpath on one side of Cadishead Way and approaching the junction with Fairhills Road from the direction of the M6 motorway there is a bend, a bridge, trees and bushes, all of which obscure and affect the line of vision of vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam. d) The junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam is very busy with vehicles turning into both Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way from both directions, which could cause distractions to drivers, particularly a driver exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way with vehicles travelling at 50mph along Cadishead Way and the restricted view. 2) I request that you conduct a review of the following issues in relation to the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam: a) The layout of the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. b) The speed limit of 50mph on Cadishead Way in the area of the junction with Fairhills Road, Irlam. c) The restricted views of vehicles pulling out of Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam, particularly caused by trees, bushes and undergrowth. d) The provision of traffic signals at the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. ”
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 Salford City Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a footpath on one side of Cadishead Way
Wider context from the report
“1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- a) The junction is very busy allowing access to industrial and retail units, including Tesco, Lidl and Screwfix off Fairhills Road, Irlam. b) Cadishead Way, Irlam is a very busy designated ‘A’ road, namely the A57 road, which is an access road towards Manchester in one direction and the M6 motorway in the other direction. c) At the junction there is no footpath on one side of Cadishead Way and approaching the junction with Fairhills Road from the direction of the M6 motorway there is a bend, a bridge, trees and bushes, all of which obscure and affect the line of vision of vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam. d) The junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam is very busy with vehicles turning into both Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way from both directions, which could cause distractions to drivers, particularly a driver exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way with vehicles travelling at 50mph along Cadishead Way and the restricted view. 2) I request that you conduct a review of the following issues in relation to the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam: a) The layout of the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. b) The speed limit of 50mph on Cadishead Way in the area of the junction with Fairhills Road, Irlam. c) The restricted views of vehicles pulling out of Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam, particularly caused by trees, bushes and undergrowth. d) The provision of traffic signals at the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. ”
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
Investigate the junction's collision circumstances, operation, collision history and traffic data with Greater Manchester Police.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I would like to inform you that Salford City Council’s Collision Investigation Team have carried out a detailed investigation into the junction following the collision. This involved a site visit on the 30th of June 2021 with Greater Manchester Police’s Specialist Operations Roads Policing Unit to understand the circumstances of the collision and to review the operation of the junction. A desktop exercise was also undertaken to review the collision history and traffic survey data in the immediate vicinity of the junction.”

Source location
Response from Salford City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 17 May 2022
Open published response
22 Nov2017
Manchester West
Concerns raised3
1. Failure to record observations of residents
2. Inadequate quality and extent of handover instructions to agency staff
3. Removal and unplugging of falls mat and sensor for high-falls-risk residents
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Kathleen Joan Devine · 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

Kathleen Joan Devine, a 94-year-old resident of a nursing home with advanced dementia and a history of falls, suffered an unwitnessed fall on 8 June 2017 while attempting to mobilise unsupervised. She sustained a right femur fracture, underwent surgery, and died on 10 June 2017 after her condition deteriorated post-operatively. Concerns included gaps in recorded observations, the removal and unplugging of a falls mat and sensor, and inadequate handover information for agency staff.

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 Salford City Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to record observations of residents
Wider context from the report
“1. The failure of staff to record observations between 6.30am and 8.30am; ”
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 Salford City Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate quality and extent of handover instructions to agency staff
Wider context from the report
“3. The quality and extent of handover instructions to agency staff; ”
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 Salford City Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Removal and unplugging of falls mat and sensor for high-falls-risk residents
Wider context from the report
“2. The removal and unplugging of a falls mat and sensor in the room of a resident with high risk falls who was awake, unsupervised and unobserved; ”
Open source report

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 raised3

Failure to prevent continued use of an unsafe foot bridge as an alternative route

Failure to provide bridge barriers preventing pedestrians from easily climbing over and falling from the bridge

Failure to apply a clear basis for including foot bridges in barrier safety works

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

Concerns raised3

Driver distraction at a busy junction with traffic travelling at 50mph

Restricted visibility for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way

Lack of a footpath on one side of Cadishead Way

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.1

Concerns raised3

Failure to record observations of residents

Inadequate quality and extent of handover instructions to agency staff

Removal and unplugging of falls mat and sensor for high-falls-risk residents

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 1