Concerns raised 1 Failure to prevent vehicles from entering the canal at the end of the road View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Doreen TURNER · 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
Doreen Turner died on 1 November 2024 after her car entered a canal at South Bank, Chichester, and she drowned. The canal was adjacent to a road with low kerbing, no devices to prevent vehicles entering the water, and evidence that another driver had entered the canal at the same location within the previous five years.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to prevent vehicles from entering the canal at the end of the road
Wider context from the report “The inquest was told that South Bank is a residential cul de sac. At the end of the road, there is a footpath which is perpendicular to the road which also runs alongside the canal. The end of the road has kerbing, a 5ft foot grass section and then the canal. The inquest heard that the kerbing is less than standard height and there are no devices present to prevent a vehicle which passes over the kerbstones from entering the canal . The evidence was that Mrs Turner was the second driver to have entered the canal in a vehicle in the last 5 years at that location.
” 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 Install reflective bollards along the canal bank to provide a clearer visual indication of the road end.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Installing bollards with reflectors on the canal bank within the gap between an existing traffic sign post and the northern end of the turning head.” Source location Response from West Sussex County Council
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 Existing kerb height provides sufficient physical and audible warning; raising it is not considered necessary and would cause visual intrusion.
Verbatim wording from the response “As noted, South Bank is a residential cul de sac. Traffic speeds approaching the end of the road are very low as drivers approach with caution influenced by the narrow confines of the road due to on-street parking. It is appreciated that the kerb height in the turning head at the end of South Bank is lower than many kerbs at the edge of a public highway, although it does still provide sufficient physical separation between the road edge and the grass bank of the canal to give a physical and audible warning to a driver. Raising the height of the kerbs would not necessarily offer any additional prevention of a vehicle overrunning onto the bank, unless they were of such a height as to fully stop a vehicle – this type of kerbing would be a significant visual intrusion and disruption to the canal bank.” Source location Response from West Sussex County Council
Open published response
4 Jun 2021 Pathushan Sutharsan · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Lack of an alternative safe crossing at the junction View source Lack of pavement alongside the A281 causing poor sight lines View source Failure to establish definitive plans to address junction safety issues View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Pathushan Sutharsan · 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 22 July 2020, Pathushan Sutharsan fell from his bicycle while approaching the junction of the Downs Link and the A281 in West Sussex and was struck by a Heavy Goods Vehicle. The report identified inadequate warning signage and no physical barrier at the junction, which continued to pose a significant risk to cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians despite improvements made after his death.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of an alternative safe crossing at the junction
Wider context from the report “Whilst it was accepted that West Sussex County Council had, following Pathushan’s death, made significant improvements to the junction between the Downs link and the A281 evidence was heard from a number of different organisations (speaking on behalf of all the different users of the Downs link) that the junction in question still posed a substantial risk for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians alike.
This junction is the only part of the Downs link that crosses a major A-road where there is no alternative safe crossing, a Pegasus crossing or bridge . Evidence was heard that there is no pavement running alongside the A281 and therefore this causes poor sight lines for horse riders and, in some circumstances, cyclists who have to put their horse’s head or part of their bike out onto the road before they can see oncoming traffic.
It is understood that WSCC has identified a need to address the issues at this junction and has undertaken (or is about to undertake a feasibility study) but it appears that at this stage there are no definitive plans in place to take this forward. Therefore the significant risk to the users of this junction remains.
The Downs link is actively promoted as a recreational activity by West Sussex County Council.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of pavement alongside the A281 causing poor sight lines
Wider context from the report “Whilst it was accepted that West Sussex County Council had, following Pathushan’s death, made significant improvements to the junction between the Downs link and the A281 evidence was heard from a number of different organisations (speaking on behalf of all the different users of the Downs link) that the junction in question still posed a substantial risk for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians alike.
This junction is the only part of the Downs link that crosses a major A-road where there is no alternative safe crossing, a Pegasus crossing or bridge. Evidence was heard that there is no pavement running alongside the A281 and therefore this causes poor sight lines for horse riders and, in some circumstances, cyclists who have to put their horse’s head or part of their bike out onto the road before they can see oncoming traffic.
It is understood that WSCC has identified a need to address the issues at this junction and has undertaken (or is about to undertake a feasibility study) but it appears that at this stage there are no definitive plans in place to take this forward. Therefore the significant risk to the users of this junction remains.
The Downs link is actively promoted as a recreational activity by West Sussex County Council.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to establish definitive plans to address junction safety issues
Wider context from the report “Whilst it was accepted that West Sussex County Council had, following Pathushan’s death, made significant improvements to the junction between the Downs link and the A281 evidence was heard from a number of different organisations (speaking on behalf of all the different users of the Downs link) that the junction in question still posed a substantial risk for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians alike.
This junction is the only part of the Downs link that crosses a major A-road where there is no alternative safe crossing, a Pegasus crossing or bridge. Evidence was heard that there is no pavement running alongside the A281 and therefore this causes poor sight lines for horse riders and, in some circumstances, cyclists who have to put their horse’s head or part of their bike out onto the road before they can see oncoming traffic.
It is understood that WSCC has identified a need to address the issues at this junction and has undertaken (or is about to undertake a feasibility study) but it appears that at this stage there are no definitive plans in place to take this forward . Therefore the significant risk to the users of this junction remains.
The Downs link is actively promoted as a recreational activity by West Sussex County Council.
” 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 Alter the height of speed terminal signs so they do not obstruct equestrians’ sightlines.
Verbatim wording from the response “Following consultation with the BHS, and in addition to those measures mentioned above, we have recently altered the height of the Speed terminal signs so that they do not block the site line for equestrians. Further planned improvements for this summer are enhanced red surfacing to further highlight the crossing to drivers and additional hedge cutting to further improve the visibility for people crossing the road.” Source location 2021-0193-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council_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 Carry out additional hedge cutting to improve visibility for people crossing the road.
Verbatim wording from the response “Following consultation with the BHS, and in addition to those measures mentioned above, we have recently altered the height of the Speed terminal signs so that they do not block the site line for equestrians. Further planned improvements for this summer are enhanced red surfacing to further highlight the crossing to drivers and additional hedge cutting to further improve the visibility for people crossing the road.” Source location 2021-0193-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council_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 Undertake a feasibility study and options appraisal for improving the crossing point, including bridge and traffic-light-controlled crossing options.
Verbatim wording from the response “A feasibility study looking into ways to improve the crossing point is currently being undertaken by the authority’s term consultant, WSP. An options appraisal report will be completed by October 2021. The study is primarily focused on, but not limited to, the options for a bridge or traffic light controlled road crossing.
If the report determines that there are appropriate, technically feasible solutions, the preferred option will be progressed through the WSC’s capital governance procedures, either as a project to be taken forward in the Local Transport Investment Programme or as a major scheme. In either case a full business case will be developed and the scheme assessed against the County Council’s objectives and priorities for potential inclusion in a future capital programme.” Source location 2021-0193-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council_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 Clear vegetation to improve visibility at the crossing point.
Verbatim wording from the response “Following the police notification of the fatal collision involving Mr Sutharsan the authority began its own now well-established investigation procedure. Based on the information available at the time a number of remedial measures were implemented to mitigate the occurrence of a similar incident involving cyclists travelling on the Downs Link. The measures were detailed in our report to the coroner dated the 7th December 2020. In summary these works consist of:” Source location 2021-0193-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Open published response
21 Dec 2020 Brian JAMES EASEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Potential asbestos-fibre contamination of council records View source Risk of asbestos exposure from contaminated council records View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Brian JAMES EASEY · 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
Brian James Easey was diagnosed with biphasic mesothelioma in September 2020 and died from the condition on 13 December 2020. The report raises concerns that asbestos fibres may remain on council records and could expose people who come into contact with them, with an associated risk of fatal mesothelioma.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Potential asbestos-fibre contamination of council records
Wider context from the report “(1) In view of Mr Easey’s description of the dust present on the council records in both locations there appears to me a real risk that these records were, and remain, contaminated with asbestos fibres ;
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Risk of asbestos exposure from contaminated council records
Wider context from the report “(2) Should there currently be asbestos fibres present on the records this presents a risk of asbestos exposure to all those whose come into contact with the records with an associated risk of developing fatal mesothelioma.
” 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 Sample and analyse dust from strong rooms 4 and 5 for asbestos contamination.
Verbatim wording from the response “contaminated with asbestos fibres. To respond to this concern, arrangements were made for air monitoring for asbestos and dust sampling testing to be undertaken at the location that the records are currently held, that being the County Records Office. The testing was undertaken by Perry Analytical Limited – Analytical and Consultant Chemist. Copies of the reports prepared by Perry Analytical are enclosed.” Source location 2020-0293-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council-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 asbestos air monitoring in strong rooms 4 and 5 where the registers are stored.
Verbatim wording from the response “contaminated with asbestos fibres. To respond to this concern, arrangements were made for air monitoring for asbestos and dust sampling testing to be undertaken at the location that the records are currently held, that being the County Records Office. The testing was undertaken by Perry Analytical Limited – Analytical and Consultant Chemist. Copies of the reports prepared by Perry Analytical are enclosed.” Source location 2020-0293-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council-Redacted
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 Testing found no asbestos in dust or airborne fibres, so contact with the registers does not present an apparent asbestos exposure risk.
Verbatim wording from the response “The second concern raised is that should there currently be asbestos fibres present on the records this presents a risk of asbestos exposure to all those who come in to contact with the records with an associated risk of developing fatal mesothelioma. Given that the findings of the air monitoring for asbestos in both strong rooms identified that the airborne concentration was satisfactory and secondly that the dust samples did not identify the presence of any asbestos, it is not apparent that any one that comes in to contact with the registers would have any exposure to asbestos.” Source location 2020-0293-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council-Redacted
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 No further action is required regarding the storage location or registers because monitoring and dust sampling found no asbestos risk.
Verbatim wording from the response “It therefore follows that there is no requirement for the council to take any further action regarding either the location in which the registers are stored or the registers in question.” Source location 2020-0293-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council-Redacted
Open published response
2 Oct 2019 Saeid Hedayat · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 4 Failure of drain-clearance risk assessments to account for zone 1 blockages View source Failure to provide warning signs for recurring zone 1 road-flooding risk View source Recurring zone 1 drain blockages from debris and silt View source Failure to review drain risk assessments at defined intervals and in response to relevant new information View source See 1 more concern
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Saeid Hedayat · 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
Saeid Hedayat lost control of his vehicle on the B2112 after encountering floodwater caused by a blocked drain, and the vehicle overturned, causing multiple injuries. He suffered a hypoxic brain injury and died. Concerns included risk assessments that did not account for recurring zone 1 drain blockages, were not regularly reviewed, and did not respond to relevant flooding reports, as well as the absence of warning signs despite recurring road flooding.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of drain-clearance risk assessments to account for zone 1 blockages
Wider context from the report “(1) West Sussex County Council’s risk assessment which was carried out to determine drain clearance frequency did not take any account of zone 1 blockages and I heard evidence that there is no time period set for reviewing the risk assessments. I heard evidence that the risk levels have not been reviewed since 2011 despite more recent data being available.
(2) I also heard evidence that neither anomalous silt level reports nor reports from members of the public of road flooding would trigger a review of the risk assessments.
(3) The highways authority representative at the inquest was not able to inform me of what plans West Sussex County Council has to reassess the drain risk levels in light of the increased severity of winter storms.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide warning signs for recurring zone 1 road-flooding risk
Wider context from the report “(4) I found that drain numbered B9913 was blocked on a regular basis due to debris and silt collecting in zone 1. There are no warning signs (temporary or permanent) drawing drivers’ attention to the flood risk despite this . I heard evidence that signs would not normally be installed unless the highways authority were not able to immediately resolve the flooding if they attended . This approach does not appear to adequately deal with the risks posed where road flooding occurs regularly due to a zone 1 blockage .
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Recurring zone 1 drain blockages from debris and silt
Wider context from the report “(4) I found that drain numbered B9913 was blocked on a regular basis due to debris and silt collecting in zone 1 . There are no warning signs (temporary or permanent) drawing drivers’ attention to the flood risk despite this. I heard evidence that signs would not normally be installed unless the highways authority were not able to immediately resolve the flooding if they attended. This approach does not appear to adequately deal with the risks posed where road flooding occurs regularly due to a zone 1 blockage.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to review drain risk assessments at defined intervals and in response to relevant new information
Wider context from the report “(1) West Sussex County Council’s risk assessment which was carried out to determine drain clearance frequency did not take any account of zone 1 blockages and I heard evidence that there is no time period set for reviewing the risk assessments . I heard evidence that the risk levels have not been reviewed since 2011 despite more recent data being available .
(2) I also heard evidence that neither anomalous silt level reports nor reports from members of the public of road flooding would trigger a review of the risk assessments .
(3) The highways authority representative at the inquest was not able to inform me of what plans West Sussex County Council has to reassess the drain risk levels in light of the increased severity of winter storms .
” 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 Record Zone 1 blockages as obstructions before cleansing and include them in cleansing-data and defect reporting.
Verbatim wording from the response “Moving forward, WSCC has now adopted the approach of recording Zone 1 blockages where the contractor is undertaking the cleansing programme. It will be logged as the asset being “obstructed prior to cleanse” and will be reported back with all other cleansing data and defects. This data, in addition to any recorded customer enquiries, will give enhanced data which will help identify areas where we might have ongoing zone 1 blockages and thus help address the Coroner’s concern.” Source location 2019-0327-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 cleansing programme and reconsider risk levels for the new term maintenance contract.
Verbatim wording from the response “As stated above, under our current Term Maintenance contract, we undertook a full review of the programme at the start of this year and a new optimised programme commenced on 1 April 2019. We are currently undertaking a procurement exercise for a new contract starting April 1st 2020 and there will be a review of the programme again and we will consider risk levels again. Award of the contract is likely to be made in December 2019 after which the specifications for drainage cleansing frequency within the new contract can be disclosed.” Source location 2019-0327-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Operate and periodically optimise a countywide, risk-based gully-cleansing programme using silt, flooding and cleansing data.
Verbatim wording from the response “At the start of our current Term Maintenance Contract (which commenced 1st July 2011) we worked with our contractor to develop an annual, county wide gully cleansing programme. To do this historical WSCC information regarding gully cleansing, silt levels and treatment intervals were assessed and an optimised cleansing programme developed. This approach involved looking at where flood events have occurred and, where silt levels in gullies have historically been high, arranging for these gullies to be cleaned more regularly than those in areas not prone to flooding and with historically low levels of silt.” Source location 2019-0327-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Consider climate-change impacts and future-proof the highway network, including adapting drain risk levels to more severe winter storms.
Verbatim wording from the response “As Highway Authority we will be considering the climate change impacts and how to future proof our network. This will include understanding and reacting to drain risk levels in light of any increased severity of winter storms.” Source location 2019-0327-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Officer assessment of flooding reports, ad hoc cleansing, and use of recorded data are considered sufficient to address drainage risks and inform future optimisation.
Verbatim wording from the response “Flooding incidents are not necessarily caused by blocked gullies. When we receive a report of a flooding incident where water is slow to drain, then an officer will attend site and assess the likely cause. There may not be any evidence of an issue and in this case the contractor may not be asked to attend. For example, where there has been an exceptional severe weather event and the gully and drainage system did not have the capacity to cope with the deluge. If an officer visits the site and the gully is silted they will arrange for our contractor to attend site and undertake an ad hoc cleanse. Whenever our contractor attends site for cleansing or jetting outside of the cleansing programme (i.e. when data is recorded as ‘Ad-Hoc’) if the level of silt recorded is above 50% then this would factor into the optimisation of the frequency of cleansing going forward.” Source location 2019-0327-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Existing flood-signing practice was considered sufficient because the authority was unaware of an ongoing zone 1 blockage at the location.
Verbatim wording from the response “If we attend site and are unable to resolve a flooding issue immediately and this is impacting safe passage of the highway, our normal practice is to place temporary Flood Signs to warn motorists until we can resolve the issue.” Source location 2019-0327-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Regular cleansing-cycle reviews and annual programme optimisation are considered sufficient to reassess drain risk and adjust cleansing frequencies.
Verbatim wording from the response “The treatment intervals for each gully were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the most appropriate level of service is delivered. At the end of a two-year cleansing cycle, an optimised cleansing regime was agreed and this took into account any changes in silt levels and priority based on levels of risk determined by the assessment of need.” Source location 2019-0327-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
Open published response
5 Jul 2019 Keith Winston Battman · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Insufficient speed-limit signage warning approaching traffic of the bend View source Faded and insufficiently prominent road “Slow” markings View source Insufficient black and white chevron signage warning drivers of the sharp bend View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Keith Winston Battman · 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
Keith Winston Battman was seriously injured when his motorcycle collided with a minibus on the A285 on 10 October 2018, and he died in hospital on 28 October 2018. The report raised concerns that the bend was insufficiently warned by chevrons, the speed-limit sign and faded road markings, and that further improvements to the road may be needed.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient speed-limit signage warning approaching traffic of the bend
Wider context from the report “2. There is a speed limit sign approximately 350 metres back from the bend as you travel south. I am concerned this does not in itself give sufficient warning and perhaps a vehicle activated flashing warning sign should be installed to detect the speed of approaching traffic and alert drivers to slow 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Faded and insufficiently prominent road “Slow” markings
Wider context from the report “3. There are two “Slow” markings on the road but I am concerned that these are faded and may not be sufficiently prominent .
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient black and white chevron signage warning drivers of the sharp bend
Wider context from the report “1. I am concerned that the number of black and white chevrons installed immediately outside the entrance to Seaford College are insufficient . There are now two small raised chevrons to allow for the dip in the road but they do not appear to adequately draw the attention of drivers approaching the bend to the fact that there is a sharp hand bend ahead . Consideration must be given to how many are needed and their location taking into account the topography and sight lines.
” 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 Install a vehicle-activated flashing bend-warning sign for southbound traffic north of the bend.
Verbatim wording from the response “Analysis of the recorded injury collision history, as part of our investigation, has identified an emerging trend of southbound motorcyclists failing to negotiate the bend. It is anticipated that the installation of the larger chevron warning sign will, in combination with the other warning signs, help address this issue, however, we are cognisant that some drivers and riders who use a route on a regular basis do not notice standard warning signs and road markings as they may believe they are familiar with the conditions they are likely to encounter. To mitigate this risk it is our intention to install a vehicle activated flashing bend warning sign for southbound traffic at an appropriate distance to the north of the bend.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Appraise safe siting and trigger speed for a vehicle-activated flashing bend-warning sign for southbound traffic.
Verbatim wording from the response “Analysis of the recorded injury collision history, as part of our investigation, has identified an emerging trend of southbound motorcyclists failing to negotiate the bend. It is anticipated that the installation of the larger chevron warning sign will, in combination with the other warning signs, help address this issue, however, we are cognisant that some drivers and riders who use a route on a regular basis do not notice standard warning signs and road markings as they may believe they are familiar with the conditions they are likely to encounter. To mitigate this risk it is our intention to install a vehicle activated flashing bend warning sign for southbound traffic at an appropriate distance to the north of the bend.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Refresh the give-way, SLOW and junction markings at the Seaford College entrance.
Verbatim wording from the response “3. One of the recommendations arising from our investigation following the collision was to refresh the give way lining at the Seaford College junction. Following receipt of your report the two painted SLOWs have been added to this programme of works. We anticipate that this work will be completed by the end of this August.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Discuss installing a banner-type sign over the Seaford College gateway to interrupt the straight-on view for southbound drivers.
Verbatim wording from the response “We are also in dialogue with Seaford College regarding the potential to interrupt the “straight on” view for southbound drivers by installing a banner type sign over their gateway. Again this measure is not within our control, but again I can advise that Seaford College have responded positively to the proposal.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Reduce the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph and install a vehicle-activated speed-warning sign near the village school.
Verbatim wording from the response “Firstly I should clarify that the chevron was removed around the time the 2010/11 road safety scheme was installed, this scheme lowered the speed limit to 30mph and removed many of the warning signs through the village - a concept known as self-explaining roads.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Provide an additional bend-warning sign with a “Reduce speed now” supplementary plate.
Verbatim wording from the response “In your report you suggested that consideration should be given to whether this stretch of road needs further improvement and I wanted to assure you that this section of road and the A285 as a whole have been the subject of a significant amount of study in recent years and have received many road safety intervention treatments. Previous works for this bend include an additional bend warning sign with a “Reduce speed now” sub plate; resurfacing with a high quality high skid resistant road surface; a reduction of the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph including Vehicle Activated Sign installed close to the village school to warn drivers and riders if they exceed the speed limit.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Install a larger yellow-bordered chevron to provide additional warning of the bend to southbound motorists.
Verbatim wording from the response “1. Following the police notification of Mr Battman’s collision the authority began its own now well established investigation procedure and acting on additional information from the police that Mr Battman may have mistook the school drive for the main road it was decided that further signage should be added. Two small stock chevrons were temporarily erected while a larger yellow bordered chevron was being manufactured; the new larger chevron was erected on the 2nd May 2019. We consider that this new signage, which reinforces the existing bend warning and map type direction sign, along with the measures detailed in paragraphs 2 and 3 below will overcome the topography issues and provide additional warning of the nature of the bend to southbound motorists.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 chevron was removed during the 2010/11 road safety scheme, rather than being absent without explanation.
Verbatim wording from the response “Firstly I should clarify that the chevron was removed around the time the 2010/11 road safety scheme was installed, this scheme lowered the speed limit to 30mph and removed many of the warning signs through the village - a concept known as self-explaining roads.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Installing a banner sign over the gateway is the responsibility of Seaford College, not the authority.
Verbatim wording from the response “We are also in dialogue with Seaford College regarding the potential to interrupt the “straight on” view for southbound drivers by installing a banner type sign over their gateway. Again this measure is not within our control, but again I can advise that Seaford College have responded positively to the proposal.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
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 Existing 30mph signs and road markings are considered sufficient to alert drivers to the speed limit.
Verbatim wording from the response “2. There is a double side 30mph repeater sign 210m to the north of the bend, this is supplemented and reinforced with two 30mph road marking roundels (one in each lane). Drivers travelling south through the village of Duncton will have been travelling in a posted 30mph speed limit for over half a mile and will have passed four 30 mph repeater signs with associated 30mph roundels and a vehicle activated flashing 30mph speed limit reminder sign before reaching the bend. It is considered that these signs and road markings are sufficient to alert drivers to the 30mph speed limit.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
Open published response
18 Apr 2017 Daniel Maher · Prevention of Future Deaths report Surrey
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Failure to routinely share clinical assessment records with receiving community mental health services outside the county View source Failure to provide timely access to patient information held by mental health services in other counties 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
Daniel Maher · 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
Daniel Maher was found hanging at his home on 26 May 2016, and efforts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful. The report raised concerns that significant information about vulnerable individuals may not be readily accessible when mental health services in West Sussex and Surrey are involved, including because of limited access to records and reliance on verbal referrals without routinely shared paperwork.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to routinely share clinical assessment records with receiving community mental health services outside the county
Wider context from the report “During the course of the inquest the court heard evidence from mental health professionals working on behalf of both West Sussex County Council and SABP.
The court was told that it was not an uncommon occurrence for patients who are detained in Surrey under s.136 MHA to be taken to Langley Green Hospital in West Sussex for assessment and then, at some point thereafter, to be released back into the care of the community health services in Surrey. Given that this is not an uncommon occurrence I have concerns regarding the sharing of information as between the respective mental health services in West Sussex and Surrey.
- The court was told that mental health professionals cannot access patient information which is held on the computerised systems of mental health services outside their own county. As a result, they are dependent on seeking that information directly from their colleagues in other counties, which the court was told was a time consuming process and also impracticable in relation to mental health assessments carried out during anti-social hours.
- The court was also told that it is common practice, after a mental health assessment has been completed at the s.136 suite at Langley Green Hospital, for a verbal referral to be made by telephone in respect of patients being referred to community mental health services outside of the county. The court was told that key paperwork, such as the clinical record of the s.136 assessment, is not routinely shared on the making of such referrals . In fact that the Approved Mental Health Professional employed by West Sussex County Council indicated that she was not allowed to fax such paperwork to other agencies for reasons of data protection .
- As a result of the above I am concerned that significant information relating to the clinical history, presentation and risk of vulnerable individuals is not easily accessible by the relevant healthcare professionals, in circumstances in which an individual is assessed at the s.136 suite in West Sussex, and has either previously been under the care of, or is referred back into the care of, mental health services in Surrey.
Consideration should be given to whether any steps can be taken to address the above concerns.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide timely access to patient information held by mental health services in other counties
Wider context from the report “During the course of the inquest the court heard evidence from mental health professionals working on behalf of both West Sussex County Council and SABP.
The court was told that it was not an uncommon occurrence for patients who are detained in Surrey under s.136 MHA to be taken to Langley Green Hospital in West Sussex for assessment and then, at some point thereafter, to be released back into the care of the community health services in Surrey. Given that this is not an uncommon occurrence I have concerns regarding the sharing of information as between the respective mental health services in West Sussex and Surrey.
- The court was told that mental health professionals cannot access patient information which is held on the computerised systems of mental health services outside their own county . As a result, they are dependent on seeking that information directly from their colleagues in other counties, which the court was told was a time consuming process and also impracticable in relation to mental health assessments carried out during anti-social hours .
- The court was also told that it is common practice, after a mental health assessment has been completed at the s.136 suite at Langley Green Hospital, for a verbal referral to be made by telephone in respect of patients being referred to community mental health services outside of the county. The court was told that key paperwork, such as the clinical record of the s.136 assessment, is not routinely shared on the making of such referrals. In fact that the Approved Mental Health Professional employed by West Sussex County Council indicated that she was not allowed to fax such paperwork to other agencies for reasons of data protection.
- As a result of the above I am concerned that significant information relating to the clinical history, presentation and risk of vulnerable individuals is not easily accessible by the relevant healthcare professionals, in circumstances in which an individual is assessed at the s.136 suite in West Sussex, and has either previously been under the care of, or is referred back into the care of, mental health services in Surrey.
Consideration should be given to whether any steps can be taken to address the above concerns.
” Open source report
17 Feb 2016 Vanessa Christine DADSWELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report Surrey
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Lack of an intermediate urgent mental health referral timeframe 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
Vanessa Christine DADSWELL · 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
Vanessa Dadswell died from injuries after placing herself in the path of an oncoming train at Whitley Railway Station on 2 April 2015. She had been urgently referred to Mental Health Services by her GP, requesting that she be seen within 24 hours, but she was not seen before her death. The principal concern was the lack of an intermediate referral option between four hours and within five days, and the absence of contact within the requested 24-hour period.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of an intermediate urgent mental health referral timeframe
Wider context from the report “During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed that any urgent referral by a GP would be categorised by West Sussex Community Mental Health as either as a ‘4 hour’ referral or as a ‘within 5 day’ referral . A ‘4 hour’ referral would involve the service user having to attend A&E urgently for an assessment within 4 hours. A ‘within 5 day referral’ was exactly as described, an appointment within 5 days. The issue arose where a referring GP did not consider it necessary nor appropriate for a 4 hour referral and yet believed a 24 hour visit was necessary as 5 days would be too long . The deceased was not seen within 24 hours and committed suicide 3 days after the referral with no direct contact having been made. Evidence given by the Service manager for the Trust agreed that an intermediate option for referral would not be unreasonable .
Consideration should be given to an alternative, intermediate referral time between the current ‘4 hour’ and ‘within 5 day’ periods for referrals together with effective management thereof.
” Open source report
4 Aug 2015 Mr Warren · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 4 Failure to equip social work staff with knowledge and training about police welfare-check criteria and appropriateness View source Failure to remove or make safe a potentially hazardous electric fire View source Failure to allocate non-urgent social welfare checks to an appropriate council employee View source Lack of formal review of safeguarding-related deaths View source See 1 more concern
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Mr Warren · 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
Mr Warren, an elderly and deaf tenant with no known family or friends, was found deceased at home on 29 January 2015 after apparently falling around 24 January and suffering broken ribs, bronchopneumonia and signs of hypothermia. Concerns included the failure to address a hazardous electric heater, the use of a non-urgent police welfare check, insufficient guidance and training for social-work staff, and the absence of a formal review by the relevant councils.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to equip social work staff with knowledge and training about police welfare-check criteria and appropriateness
Wider context from the report “(4) That WSCC Social Work staff are not aware of, given any training regarding or provided with any information about the criteria likely to be applied by police for conducting welfare checks and/or the circumstances in which it is or is not appropriate to ask the police to conduct a welfare check .
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to remove or make safe a potentially hazardous electric fire
Wider context from the report “(2) That Mr Warren had a potentially hazardous electric fire inside his home that had been supplied by his landlords (CBC) and that was left in situ from 14th January up until his death despite notification of this to the housing authorities ;
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to allocate non-urgent social welfare checks to an appropriate council employee
Wider context from the report “(3) That WSCC Social Work staff sought to use police resources to conduct a non-urgent social welfare check , rather than allocating that check to an appropriate council employee ;
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of formal review of safeguarding-related deaths
Wider context from the report “(1) That neither CBC nor WSCC have a yet undertaken any formal review of this case despite the death of someone known to both organisation and subject to a safeguarding alert at the time of his death. An opportunity to learn lessons from the above events has hence been delayed and potentially been lost.
” 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 Complete a detailed review of the circumstances surrounding Mr Warren’s involvement with the Council.
Verbatim wording from the response “I can confirm that we have now completed a detailed review (copy attached) of the circumstances relating to our involvement with Mr Warren. We involved Crawley Borough Council in the review process.” Source location 2015-0307-West-Sussex-County-Council
Open published response
17 Mar 2015 Alasdair Neal Penny · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Failure of bridge railings to prevent easy mounting View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Alasdair Neal Penny · 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
Alasdair Neal Penny, a 23-year-old man, jumped from a road bridge onto the road below on 4 May 2014 and died from multiple injuries. The bridge had previously been the site of a suicide, and the concern was whether additional protection could make it more difficult to use the bridge as a suicide site and minimise recurrence.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of bridge railings to prevent easy mounting
Wider context from the report “This Bridge has been the site of 2 suicides in 2011 and 2014; I am unaware if there have been any other successful suicides at this location before then, but if so, not in the very recent past.
In each of the 2 cases the deceased jumped from the bridge on to the road below, a distance of 10-11 metres. The 2 footpaths that bound the carriageway each have a metal railing and the height of the railing is such that they can be quite easily mounted.
There is a series of discrete notices on the mesh infill to the railings, giving details, I understand, of the Samaritans.
I cannot, and do not, offer a solution I certainly recognise that merely raising the level of the railing may not prevent the determined person to climb up and jump. But it might well stop the spontaneous jumper.
I understand that I do not know whether it is possible/feasible to provide extra/or some other form of protection in order to make it more difficult for the bridge to be used as a suicide site.
However, I do believe that the whole situation should be reconsidered in case something can be reasonably implemented to minimise the possibility of a recurrence.
” 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 technical feasibility of increasing the College Lane Bridge parapet height to deter future jumps.
Verbatim wording from the response “While we would caution that it is unlikely that any engineering solution would be 100% effective we will be investigating whether it is technically feasible to increase the height of the current parapet to deter as far as practicable similar events occurring in the future. If an appropriate solution can be determined we intend to undertake the alterations within this financial year, subject to any design and programming constraints. If an appropriate technical solution cannot be realised I will write to you again explaining the reasons why.” Source location 2015-0106-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
Open published response
23 Jan 2015 MRS HILARY MOOCK and MRS JANICE TAYLOR · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 6 Failure of the A285 to meet modern road design standards View source Risk to drivers from opposite-direction vehicles during a slowed approach into the road View source Lack of lighting at the road location View source Failure of the entrance road surface to provide a sufficient even asphalted access View source Lack of clear indication of the entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages View source Limited line of sight for the turn from the Northerly approach View source See 3 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
MRS HILARY MOOCK and MRS JANICE TAYLOR · 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
Mrs Hilary Moock and Mrs Janice Taylor sustained fatal injuries in a road traffic collision on 28 September 2013 while travelling as passengers near the entrance to St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages. The report identified concerns about the unlit rural road, limited visibility, unclear entrance, uneven unmade road surface and the potential risk to vehicles slowing to turn into the entrance.
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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of the A285 to meet modern road design standards
Wider context from the report “(1) The A285 is an ancient rural road and it does not meet the design standards of a modern road . It is noted that this road features in the list of persistently higher risk roads under the EuroRap fatal and serious collisions per kilometre travelled analysis.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Risk to drivers from opposite-direction vehicles during a slowed approach into the road
Wider context from the report “(4) This hesitation could cause drivers to slow down their approach into the road and therefore put them at risk from vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of lighting at the road location
Wider context from the report “(2) The location of this accident is in a dark unlit area and there is no clear indication that there is an entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages. This is a difficult turn to make from the Northerly approach as the line of sight to the brow of the hill is only 90 metres.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of the entrance road surface to provide a sufficient even asphalted access
Wider context from the report “(3) There is only limited amount of asphalt at the entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages of some 2 metres. The road then becomes “unmade” and uneven with several large potholes. It appeared from the evidence that because of this drivers are somewhat cautious when driving into the road.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of clear indication of the entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages
Wider context from the report “(2) The location of this accident is in a dark unlit area and there is no clear indication that there is an entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages . This is a difficult turn to make from the Northerly approach as the line of sight to the brow of the hill is only 90 metres.
” 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 West Sussex County Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Limited line of sight for the turn from the Northerly approach
Wider context from the report “(2) The location of this accident is in a dark unlit area and there is no clear indication that there is an entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages. This is a difficult turn to make from the Northerly approach as the line of sight to the brow of the hill is only 90 metres .
” 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 Investigated the access track’s condition and whether it contributed to the collision.
Verbatim wording from the response “Our own investigation in October 2013 considered the condition of the access track to St Mary’s Farm and Benges Cottages and whether this had been a causative factor in the collision. Evidence given at the inquest in relation to the behaviour and actions of the driver of the vehicle executing the turn and the range of factors that may have affected his judgment on this specific occasion will be significant in terms of causation and will have been taken into account. It is not considered that the change in surface would of itself have been a significant factor outside those additional and particular factors pertinent to the incident.” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
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 Visited the site one year after the original investigation to assess the track’s condition.
Verbatim wording from the response “There is no public right of way by motor vehicles along the bridleway; such use is restricted to drivers with a private right of access. Responsibility for the maintenance of the surface for vehicular use falls to the private users. These drivers will be familiar with the location, its condition and its intersection with the main highway. We do not consider it likely that such drivers will exhibit excessive caution at this location due to the change in surface. It would seem reasonable to conclude that regular motor-vehicle users of the track are those best placed to make a decision on the suitable condition required for safe access to and from the main highway. At a site visit one year on from our original investigation it appeared that the track was in a similar condition to that on the date of the fatal collision.” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
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 Undertook daylight and darkness field tests of the right-turn manoeuvre and available visibility.
Verbatim wording from the response “adjustments on seeing a turning vehicle and maintains their speed. Our own on site field tests undertaken in daylight and darkness showed that from a standing start, handbrake on, wheels aligned straight and proceeding cautiously, the right turn manoeuvre was completed in between 3 and 3.5 seconds (to fully clear the southbound lane and enter the bridleway). In daylight it was possible to complete the turn without causing a southbound vehicle to adjust its speed if the manoeuvre was started before there was a southbound vehicle in sight. If a vehicle was in sight then the turn was not executed. At night it was far easier to judge the presence of oncoming vehicles as the glow from their headlights was apparent a significant time before they crested the rise. We conclude that the 90m forward visibility for a right turning driver is adequate for drivers exercising proper care and attention.” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
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 Council considers it has no maintenance duty and potentially lacks legal power to extend asphalt into the bridleway.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. There is no duty on West Sussex County Council as the Highway Authority to maintain the bridleway beyond that standard required for its publicly permitted use. More, the construction of an asphalt hard surface may go beyond the power to carry out works to improve highways given under Section 62 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 as this should be determined by the public use attaching to the route. Given this and the other considerations above the County Council does not consider there to be any grounds to carry out any works to extend the area of asphalt surface further into the bridleway.” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
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 Private users with vehicular access are responsible for maintaining the track surface for vehicular use.
Verbatim wording from the response “There is no public right of way by motor vehicles along the bridleway; such use is restricted to drivers with a private right of access. Responsibility for the maintenance of the surface for vehicular use falls to the private users. These drivers will be familiar with the location, its condition and its intersection with the main highway. We do not consider it likely that such drivers will exhibit excessive caution at this location due to the change in surface. It would seem reasonable to conclude that regular motor-vehicle users of the track are those best placed to make a decision on the suitable condition required for safe access to and from the main highway. At a site visit one year on from our original investigation it appeared that the track was in a similar condition to that on the date of the fatal collision.” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
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 access route is not considered to require ongoing maintenance given the history of incidents at this location.
Verbatim wording from the response “It could be surmised that regular users with private vehicular rights do not consider that its condition hinders motor vehicle access to the degree that it requires them to undertake regular and on-going maintenance. The Authority does not consider that access to or from the main carriageway requires such maintenance given the history of” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
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 specific junction does not have a sufficiently high collision rate to justify intervention under the Council’s investigation criteria.
Verbatim wording from the response “1. The A285 does feature on the EuroRap list of persistently high risk routes under the EuroRap fatal and serious collisions per kilometre travelled analysis. However the specific location of this incident does not express a high collision rate. In the five years to December 2014 there have been three reported injury collisions including that of the 28th September 2013. The other two collisions resulted in slight injuries. West Sussex County Council’s current criterion for investigating collision cluster sites for possible remedial measures is eight reported injury collisions in five years or five reported injury collisions in three years. The EuroRap listing is not therefore a useful reference point for an assessment of intervention need for the specific location of this incident.” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
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 Available visibility is considered adequate for drivers exercising proper care and attention.
Verbatim wording from the response “Visibility is limited by the topography (a hill crest slightly north of “Benges”) which makes turning manoeuvres on this section of road slightly more difficult to negotiate than on a road designed to modern standards, but not exceptionally so. The visibility is not reduced below the stopping distances given in the Highway Code for 60mph.” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
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 landowner may seek planning permission for surface improvements, subject to normal planning processes.
Verbatim wording from the response “The landowner may seek planning permission to make improvements to improve the quality of the surface so as to ease vehicular use and the County Council would not unreasonably object to such permission, subject to normal planning processes, should they wish to do so.” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
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 Additional lighting is not considered necessary because the route is rural, lighting would be disproportionate, and it could distract drivers.
Verbatim wording from the response “2. The route is a rural road in the heart of the South Downs National Park and as such, in common with other rural roads, is unlit. The start of the entrance is indicated by a bridleway direction sign (to diagram No 2610 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002) sited at its junction with the A285, which serves as a marker. St Mary’s Farm, Benges and Benges Cottages are private destinations and it would be expected that visitors with private vehicular right of access would be familiar with the location of the entrance. Lighting for the route would be both disproportionate to benefit and would be contrary to light pollution minimisation within such a rural setting. Specific lighting for such a junction would be a distraction rather than a benefit to drivers.” Source location 2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Open published response
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations