Concerns raised 2 Failure to apply a comparable safety approach to non-tidal waters View source Failure to ensure adequate safety measures at the site View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Jordan Shaun Mhlanga-Veira · 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
Jordan Shaun Mhlanga-Veira, aged 15, got into difficulty while playing with friends in a river at a site in Cookham, Berkshire, on 31 May 2021 and subsequently drowned. He was found dead in the early hours of the following morning. The report raised concerns about the absence of safety measures at the site, including warning signs, throw ropes and buoys, and about the lack of a statutory framework for safety measures at inland waters.
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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to apply a comparable safety approach to non-tidal waters
Wider context from the report “2. Consideration should be given to approaching safety in relation to non-tidal waters in the same or similar way that tidal waters are dealt with . Whilst some proportionality will of course be required, it may be that there is some predictability to areas of particular danger in inland waters , for instance where these are regularly used by members of the public (as was the case here), and with reference to weather, and bank holidays.
” 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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure adequate safety measures at the site
Wider context from the report “1. Whilst it is not a matter for the coroner at an inquest to recommend particular safety measures, I ask that safety measures at the site be reviewed urgently , to include consideration of warning signs, position of throw ropes, and consideration of buoys in the water (at the point where it becomes deep) . I appreciate that many of these measures will contain both advantages and disadvantages, and this will be a matter for debate amongst the appropriate agencies referred to in this report.
” 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 Commence a signage pilot at Cock Marsh testing locations, wording and effectiveness of warnings about depth, strong currents and hidden obstacles.
Verbatim wording from the response “iii) A signage pilot will commence prior to the early spring Bank Holiday to test the location, wording and effectiveness of such measures at the specific location warning of depth, strong currents, and hidden obstacles. The risk assessment will also consider the location of existing lifesaving equipment and whether further provision should be made.” Source location 2021-0403-Response-from-National-Trust_Published
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 Complete a site visit and full review of the Cock Marsh visitor risk assessment.
Verbatim wording from the response “28. Following your report, it was agreed as a priority the General Manager ████████, Lead Ranger, ████████ and Head of Compliance ████████ would visit the site and review the current risk assessment and consider whether further reasonably practicable and effective measures could be put in place to reduce the risk associated voluntarily accepted by those who chose to swim in that area of the Thames.” Source location 2021-0403-Response-from-National-Trust_Published
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 Create a distinct visitor risk assessment for the beach and similar Cock Marsh locations, specifically addressing drowning risk and non-obvious hazards.
Verbatim wording from the response “i) Following the site visit and review of the current visitor risk assessment, which covers a large area of land and a number of other visitor risks, the area known as the beach and other potential similar locations at Cock Marsh will be separately drawn out into a distinct visitor risk assessment specially to consider drowning risk.” Source location 2021-0403-Response-from-National-Trust_Published
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 Assess the location of existing lifesaving equipment and consider whether further provision is needed.
Verbatim wording from the response “iii) A signage pilot will commence prior to the early spring Bank Holiday to test the location, wording and effectiveness of such measures at the specific location warning of depth, strong currents, and hidden obstacles. The risk assessment will also consider the location of existing lifesaving equipment and whether further provision should be made.” Source location 2021-0403-Response-from-National-Trust_Published
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 not required to safeguard obvious risks voluntarily undertaken by visitors, including entering the water.
Verbatim wording from the response “12. The relevant statutory and common law provisions apply equally to coastal and inland waterways. The applicable law for landowners can be found within the Occupiers’ Liability Acts and for employers, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Neither of the statutes impose a duty on the landowner to guard against an obvious hazard such as a water course or provide risk mitigation measures for those who choose to undertake activity not being promoted or organised by the landowner or employer’s undertaking. The application of these statutory provisions and of the common law has been clearly and authoritatively stated by the High Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.” Source location 2021-0403-Response-from-National-Trust_Published
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 same legal duties and water-safety approach apply to tidal and non-tidal waters, so no specific distinction is made between them.
Verbatim wording from the response “31. The Trust has carefully considered the second matter of concern within the Regulation 28 report. For the reasons set out above the Trust does not believe there is any legal distinction between non-tidal and tidal waters or coastal or inland waterways. As such, the same legal duties apply to both coastal waters and inland waterways and tidal and non-tidal waters. The Trust does not make any specific distinction between coastal waters and inland waterways as far as water safety is concerned and undertakes risk assessments with annual reviews that consider visitor safety on the land it owns along the coastline and next to inland waterways. In both cases it applies the VSG guidance.” Source location 2021-0403-Response-from-National-Trust_Published
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 Trust cannot unilaterally place buoys because it does not own, operate or control the River Thames.
Verbatim wording from the response “24. Buoys. The Trust does not own, operate or control the River. It is not within its power to unilaterally place buoys in the water. However, even if it was, the Trust would have a very serious concern that the presence of buoys would indicate by implication that areas of the River were safe to swim in and thereby encourage people into the water. That would be contrary to the Trust’s overall approach to water safety and the relevant guidance. Further, buoys would, as the Trust understands it, interfere with the legitimate rights of users of the river. The Trust understands this is also the position of the Environment Agency.” Source location 2021-0403-Response-from-National-Trust_Published
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 Public throw ropes are not generally provided because experience indicates they are vulnerable to theft and vandalism and may encourage misuse or perceived safety.
Verbatim wording from the response “25. The position of throw ropes. The Trust does not generally provide throw ropes. It does not believe the specific rope referred to was located on National Trust land. Experience tells us that equipment such as throw ropes is often stolen and/or vandalised. The Trust’s experience is that the provision of public rescue equipment creates an inducement for either misuse or a perception of safety.” Source location 2021-0403-Response-from-National-Trust_Published
Open published response
13 Jan 2020 Annette Jane Lewis · Prevention of Future Deaths report Isle of Wight
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Lack of fencing to protect the public from falling over the cliff edge at Tennyson Down View source Lack of suicide-prevention signage providing the Samaritans telephone number at Tennyson Down View source
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
Annette Jane Lewis · 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
Annette Jane Lewis died after throwing herself from a cliff at Tennyson Down while in acute distress and behaving unusually. The concerns identified were the absence of fencing at the cliff edge and the lack of signs directing people in mental distress to support such as the Samaritans.
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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of fencing to protect the public from falling over the cliff edge at Tennyson Down
Wider context from the report “1. I heard evidence from ████████ that there are no fences to protect the public from falling over the edge of the cliff at Tennyson Down , and moreover that there are no signs providing those in some sort of mental distress with the number for the Samaritans. Whilst I acknowledge that putting fences around the edge of the cliff would be a massive undertaking by the landowners, it may prevent a future death if those who are in extremes are reminded that there are people out there who are trained to assist them at that time.
2. Having just concluded a similar inquest involving a woman who threw herself from the top of Culver Cliff where I raised similar concerns with both the National Trust and the Director of Public Health who heads up the Suicide Prevention Group on the Isle of Wight, it seems appropriate that if consideration is being given by these organisations to better signage being implemented at the top of Culver Cliff, at the same time, consideration can also be given to making similar improvements at Tennyson Down.
” 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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of suicide-prevention signage providing the Samaritans telephone number at Tennyson Down
Wider context from the report “1. I heard evidence from ████████ that there are no fences to protect the public from falling over the edge of the cliff at Tennyson Down, and moreover that there are no signs providing those in some sort of mental distress with the number for the Samaritans . Whilst I acknowledge that putting fences around the edge of the cliff would be a massive undertaking by the landowners, it may prevent a future death if those who are in extremes are reminded that there are people out there who are trained to assist them at that time.
2. Having just concluded a similar inquest involving a woman who threw herself from the top of Culver Cliff where I raised similar concerns with both the National Trust and the Director of Public Health who heads up the Suicide Prevention Group on the Isle of Wight, it seems appropriate that if consideration is being given by these organisations to better signage being implemented at the top of Culver Cliff, at the same time, consideration can also be given to making similar improvements at Tennyson Down .
” Open source report
31 Dec 2019 Joanna Sarah Louise Orpin · Prevention of Future Deaths report Isle of Wight
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Unavailability of suicide prevention signs at Culver Cliff View source Recurring mental distress and safety risk at Culver Cliff View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Joanna Sarah Louise Orpin · 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
Joanna Sarah Louise Orpin experienced severe, treatment-resistant agitated depression before leaving home on 13 February 2018 and disappearing near Culver Cliff. Her body was found on mudflats at Bosham Quay on 18 February 2018, and the inquest concluded that she killed herself. The substantive concerns included recurring incidents involving people in mental distress at Culver Cliff and the apparent absence of suicide-prevention signs there.
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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Unavailability of suicide prevention signs at Culver Cliff
Wider context from the report “2. I was also informed that whilst there used to be signs at the top of Culver Cliff akin to those which are found at Beachy Head in East Sussex and the Itchen Bridge in Southampton which have wording such as “Suicidal? Despairing? Call Samaritans on [local number]”, these signs appear to no longer be present . (Since the Inquest, I have been provided with the following proof that these signs once existed from ████████: https://www.alamy.com/culver-down-uk-07th-july-2018-a-samaritans-sign-on-the-edge-of-culver-cliff-on-the-isle-of-wight-uk-reads-talk-to-us-if-things-are-getting-to-you-posted-after-a-spate-of-suicides-from-the-same-spot-yachts-can-be-seen-passing-in-the-background-during-the-round-the-island-yacht-race-on-the-hottest-recorded-day-of-the-year-so-far-at-33-degrees-celsius-credit-matthew-blythealmy-live-news-image211378076.html )
3. During the course of his evidence, Inspector ████████ told the Inquest that he had made recommendations for these signs to be displayed approximately 3 years ago, and he was aware that a Consultant Psychiatrist had made similar recommendations within the last 12 months. Concerns had been ventilated in relation to how many signs would be required and at what intervals. It was the opinion of Inspector ████████ that just a small number of strategically placed signs (perhaps in the car park, and at various intervals along the length of the fence as well as at places where it is easier to cross the protective fence at the kissing gate) would be adequate – in his words, “If they save just one life, then it would be worthwhile.” I agree with his views.
4. I also heard evidence from ████████, a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Isle of Wight NHS Trust that he sits on a Suicide Prevention Group, and they had also tried to get these signs reinstated at the top of Culver Cliff, to no avail .
” 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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Recurring mental distress and safety risk at Culver Cliff
Wider context from the report “1. I heard evidence from Inspector ████████ that there are at least 3 or 4 people per month who are found in a state of mental distress at Culver Cliff who require the assistance of the Police or other agencies to ensure their safety .
” 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 Maintain seven Samaritans signs at Culver Down.
Verbatim wording from the response “I can confirm that a number of measures were already in place at Culver Down, including a total of seven Samaritans signs placed within the past few years. A schematic showing the locations of these signs is at Annex A. In addition, ‘dragons teeth’ (wooden bollards to prevent vehicle access) are in place opposite the exits from the car park and there is a ditch to ground vehicles approaching the cliff edge. There is also a barbed wire fence running the” Source location 2019-0457.-Response-from-the-Isle-of-Wight-National-Trust-Redacted
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 Conduct site visits at Culver and Tennyson Downs with the Isle of Wight Suicide Prevention and Intervention team.
Verbatim wording from the response “2. Engagement with the Suicide Prevention & Intervention, Isle of Wight team. A meeting with ████████ from the group has been scheduled for Friday 3rd April 2020 to conduct site visits to both Culver and Tennyson Downs.” Source location 2019-0457.-Response-from-the-Isle-of-Wight-National-Trust-Redacted
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 Conduct a full internal review of suicide-prevention measures after the planned meetings.
Verbatim wording from the response “6. Conduct a full internal review of our suicide prevention measures. Once all the above meetings are complete, we will conduct a full review of our measures and implement changes where appropriate.” Source location 2019-0457.-Response-from-the-Isle-of-Wight-National-Trust-Redacted
Open published response
Concerns raised 2 Lack of natural barriers at the edge of the cliff at Hells Mouth View source Lack of suicide support agency telephone numbers at Hells Mouth View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
SIMON DENNIS CHARLES · 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
Simon Charles was found dead in the sea at Hells Mouth on 3 July 2016 after a concern for welfare search. He had been suffering from depression and had previously made a serious attempt to take his own life. Concerns were raised about the lack of additional preventive measures at Hells Mouth, including suicide-support signage and natural barriers.
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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of natural barriers at the edge of the cliff at Hells Mouth
Wider context from the report “The Family and others at inquest raised concerns that there are not more preventive measures (apart from a fence) to those contemplating suicide (or undertaking risky behaviour) at Hells Mouth , which is a renowned suicide location in Cornwall. They provided examples of the type of measures which they felt could additionally be put in place such as:
• Providing the telephone number of suicide support agencies such as the Samaritans in the same way as at Beachy Head, East Sussex
• Using natural barriers at the edge of the cliff such as encouraging or planting gorse or other such plants as in Devon along the coast line especially where falls have been known to have occurred
The coastline around Cornwall and in particular, the area around Hells Mouth are owned by the National Trust. It would require the consent of the National Trust to put up such signs or other preventative measures and this is the reason for raising the concerns with you and your organisation.
” 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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of suicide support agency telephone numbers at Hells Mouth
Wider context from the report “The Family and others at inquest raised concerns that there are not more preventive measures (apart from a fence) to those contemplating suicide (or undertaking risky behaviour) at Hells Mouth , which is a renowned suicide location in Cornwall. They provided examples of the type of measures which they felt could additionally be put in place such as:
• Providing the telephone number of suicide support agencies such as the Samaritans in the same way as at Beachy Head, East Sussex
• Using natural barriers at the edge of the cliff such as encouraging or planting gorse or other such plants as in Devon along the coast line especially where falls have been known to have occurred
The coastline around Cornwall and in particular, the area around Hells Mouth are owned by the National Trust. It would require the consent of the National Trust to put up such signs or other preventative measures and this is the reason for raising the concerns with you and your organisation.
” 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 options for installing safety signage at Hells Mouth with Cornwall Samaritans.
Verbatim wording from the response “I can confirm that our local team are in contact with ████████ Director of Cornwall Samaritans, to investigate options for introducing signage at Hells Mouth. The initial thought from our staff is that it would be most practical to have small signs on the barrier near the cliff edge and potentially larger signs in the car park of the café opposite (where Mr Charles’ parked van was found). The latter would require the agreement of the café owners.” Source location 2016-0465-Response-by-National-Trust.pdf
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 Vegetation cannot feasibly prevent cliff-edge access and could encourage visitors into more dangerous positions, increasing accidental trip and fall risks.
Verbatim wording from the response “With regards to the suggestion that vegetation could be planted to prevent access to the cliff edge, we believe this would be difficult to achieve and counterproductive. The exposed nature of the cliff top in this area limits the natural growth of shrubs and we feel it would not be possible to establish sufficient growth to prevent physical access to the cliff. The impact on the views that screening by vegetation would produce would, in our view, encourage visitors to circumvent such a barrier and put themselves in a potentially much more dangerous position, leading to a greater chance of accidental trips and falls.” Source location 2016-0465-Response-by-National-Trust.pdf
Open published response
Concerns raised 2 Foreseeable displacement of the Byway 11 safety hazard to the Byway 12 connection with the A303 View source Public use of the northernmost Byway 11 area as a car park or stopping point View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Patrick Derek Sturivant · 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
Patrick Derek Sturivant was struck by a Mercedes while crossing the A303 near Byway 11 at Stonehenge on 29 August 2014 and died in hospital the following day from an unsurvivable brain injury. The concerns were that public use of the area near Byway 11 for parking and viewing Stonehenge created a risk of similar deaths, and that closing or modifying Byway 11 could shift the risk to Byway 12.
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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Foreseeable displacement of the Byway 11 safety hazard to the Byway 12 connection with the A303
Wider context from the report “(2) Even if the above proposal is adopted in co-operation with the National Trust and Wiltshire Council I have however a further concern that in my view it is reasonably foreseeable that the problem currently associated with the area adjacent to the point at which Byway 11 joins the A303 will move approximately 390 metres west to the point at which Byway 12 connects to the A303 . I know the area well and I can just see the problem shifting to this particular location and that concerns me from the point of view of the prevention of future deaths as if not addressed at this point could again lead to another fatality occurring in similar circumstances following the closure of Byway 11.
I heard evidence from ████████ that Byway 12 is actively used as a green lane and I am fully aware that any modification to Byway 12 due to its use as a connecting green lane between the A303 and the A360 is likely to be highly controversial and political but that does not remove the concern that I have that there in my view is a reasonably foreseeable risk in the future if the terminal end of Byway 11 is closed. It is within in mind and having considered the matter further after the inquest that I have included in the list of recipients of this Regulation 28 Report, The Department of Transport and English Heritage. The reason for this is of course last year the issue of the A303 generally in this area, having regard to the A344, has prompted a review of the highway infrastructure in this area from the point of view of diverting the A303 or indeed as regards the funding of a tunnel through which the A303 would pass underground in the vicinity of the Stonehenge Monument and I would therefore like my concerns relative to the issues raised in this report relative Byway 11 and Byway 12 south of the A303 to be taken into consideration.
” 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 The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Public use of the northernmost Byway 11 area as a car park or stopping point
Wider context from the report “(1) At the end of the Inquest I heard live evidence from ████████ who had prepared a helpful Traffic Management and Road Safety Assessment. I have enclosed a copy of that report with this letter as it includes helpful diagrams and maps to help explain the issue.
He gave evidence having visited the scene that indications of activity on Byway 11 would appear to be limited to the area in the immediate vicinity of the A303 itself being used by the public as a car park or a stopping point so as to enable the occupants of vehicles, as indeed was the case with Pat and his passenger, to get a better view of the Stonehenge Monument lying to the north of the A303. Clearly the public are using this area in this manner and I am therefore concerned that there is a risk of future deaths occurring in similar circumstances if action is not taken.
It was not ████████ opinion that the rest of Byway 11 was being actively and frequently used as a green lane. Byway 11’s current designation is as a BOAT (Byway Open to All Traffic). In Highway Law the right of the public to use such a right of way is to pass and repass along it. The right does not extend in the absence of an emergency to parking.
████████ explained that discussions have taken place with the owner of the land, The National Trust and also with Wiltshire Council Rights of Way Department and their legal team with a view to possible closing of the terminal 600 metre section of Byway 11 laying immediately south of the A303 and the Stonehenge Monument, downgrading Byway 11 down to a Bridleway and then diverting the bridleway along a current permissive path on National Trust Property so that the diverted Right of Way will then join Byway 12 approximately 400 metres south of the A303. The explanation and a plan are found on the final page of ████████ Report.
I can entirely see the logic of this proposal and fully support the proposal as a means of addressing my concern relative to the area at the northernmost point of Byway 11. Such a modification would stop this area being used as a car park so as to facilitate free viewing access to the Stonehenge Monument.
” 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 Wiltshire Council must decide whether to close and downgrade Byway 11 and divert the Right of Way.
Verbatim wording from the response “We would be supportive of a proposal to close the terminal 600 metre section of Byway 11, downgrade this to a Bridleway, and divert the Right of Way along a permissive path to Byway 12 if this is a step that Wiltshire Council wish to take.” Source location National-Trust-Response_Redacted
Open published response
Includes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations