PFD report

Christopher Kapessa · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Jan 2024•South Wales Central

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
8

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised8

  1. Lack of a specific water safety safety-equipment policy
  2. Absence of signage warning of the dangers of deep and fast-flowing water
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate warnings about location-specific hazards at public waterside locations
  3. Failure to make public activity risk reports readily cross-referenced and accessible to safety inspectors
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Action

    Implement a Water Safety Procedure guiding risk assessment and decisions on signage, fencing, information and water-rescue equipment.

    Stated by Mining Remediation AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 February 2024.
  2. Action

    Give Project Managers authority to arrange immediate site repairs costing up to £25,000 without awaiting the budget process.

    Stated by Mining Remediation AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 February 2024.
  3. Action

    Enhance site-inspection documentation to require pre-inspection checks of prior risk assessments and safety observations reported through Authority systems.

    Stated by Mining Remediation AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 February 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Existing hazard-reporting and online safety systems are considered sufficient to record, action and provide relevant public safety information to inspectors.

    Stated by Mining Remediation AuthorityExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of a specific water safety safety-equipment policy

Wider context from the report

“(2) No specific water safety policy relating to risk assessment or the provision of safety equipment was in place, or is currently in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Absence of signage warning of the dangers of deep and fast-flowing water

Wider context from the report

“(4) Inspectors were not provided with any guidance as to how to assess whether members of the public accessing the site should be safeguarded from the risks of deep and fast flowing water, and if so how. No signage was in place to warn of the specific dangers of deep and fast flowing water. No consideration was given as to whether equipment to assist in the rescue of members of the public who may have got into difficulty, such as throw lines, should be provided. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate warnings about location-specific hazards at public waterside locations.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to make public activity risk reports readily cross-referenced and accessible to safety inspectors

Wider context from the report

“(1) The Coal Authority was aware that members of the public used the site for purposes including recreational walking. The Court found that the site was known by children as a site from which to swim, but that this was unknown to the Coal Authority. Nevertheless, Coal Authority documentation was not easily cross referenced or accessible to inspectors to ensure that any reports that might be made with respect to activities by members of the public who might put themselves at risk were available to inspectors when conducting safety inspections. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to consider provision of equipment for rescuing members of the public in difficulty

Wider context from the report

“(4) Inspectors were not provided with any guidance as to how to assess whether members of the public accessing the site should be safeguarded from the risks of deep and fast flowing water, and if so how. No signage was in place to warn of the specific dangers of deep and fast flowing water. No consideration was given as to whether equipment to assist in the rescue of members of the public who may have got into difficulty, such as throw lines, should be provided. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Inadequate annual safety inspection content, format and decision-making criteria

Wider context from the report

“(3) The annual inspections conducted by the Coal Authority were limited in content, unclear in format and identified no clear criteria to be used for the basis of decision making. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable annual safety inspection processes.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of a specific water safety risk-assessment policy

Wider context from the report

“(2) No specific water safety policy relating to risk assessment or the provision of safety equipment was in place, or is currently in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to ensure completion of remedial works identified during safety inspections

Wider context from the report

“(5) Remedial work was identified to remedy aspects of the site which rendered it unsafe, but were not carried out. No system appeared to be in place to ensure that such works were carried out following inspection. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure identified safety remedial works are completed.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide inspectors with guidance for assessing safeguards against deep and fast-flowing water

Wider context from the report

“(4) Inspectors were not provided with any guidance as to how to assess whether members of the public accessing the site should be safeguarded from the risks of deep and fast flowing water, and if so how. No signage was in place to warn of the specific dangers of deep and fast flowing water. No consideration was given as to whether equipment to assist in the rescue of members of the public who may have got into difficulty, such as throw lines, should be provided. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable guidance and communication for safety risk assessments.

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

Implement a Water Safety Procedure guiding risk assessment and decisions on signage, fencing, information and water-rescue equipment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As stated in the letter of the 17 January 2024, the CA was at that time developing a water safety procedure. This sits alongside the CA’s procedure on safe working near water. The CA’s overarching health, safety and wellbeing policy, safe working near water procedure and new Water Safety Procedure are all attached for reference.”

Source location

Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 3 · response
Published 12 February 2024

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

Give Project Managers authority to arrange immediate site repairs costing up to £25,000 without awaiting the budget process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is now a system in place and a process to be followed which ensures that identified works are recorded, notified, remedied and reviewed, with Project Managers (who inspect sites) now having the authority to organise immediate repairs up to the value of £25,000 on their own initiative. The latter reduces the possibility that lower cost repairs, which would include additional fencing for example, can be undertaken more swiftly than if it had to go through the budget process and would remain in the immediate oversight of the inspector.”

Source location

Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 6 · response
Published 12 February 2024

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

Enhance site-inspection documentation to require pre-inspection checks of prior risk assessments and safety observations reported through Authority systems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the time of the incident there existed and had existed for many years, a 24-hour hazard report line which enabled such reports to be received, logged and acted upon and there is no evidence, as became clear during the inquest, that such reports were received by the CA. In addition to this any observations made by CA staff (outside of formal inspections) or reported by the public through other channels are recorded through the CA’s online Health and Safety portal.”

Source location

Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 2024

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 the Public Safety Risk Assessment process to classify sites, prioritise visits proportionately and track timely recommendations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As outlined in ████████ letter of the 17th January, a new Public Safety Risk Assessment (PSRA) process was introduced during July 2020. The PSRA, its associated guidance and the e-learning package, was developed by the Authority’s Safety, Health & Environment (SHE) team in collaboration with the Environment Agency and with good practice adapted to meet the specific needs of the Authority.”

Source location

Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 5 · response
Published 12 February 2024

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

Maintain a single system for recording, tracking, reporting and reviewing remedial works arising from public-safety inspections.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This concern has been addressed through the reviewed Public Safety Risk Assessment process as mentioned above and in Paul Frammingham’s letter of the 17 January 2024 where in addition to a description of the new Public Safety Risk Assessment process, he states,”

Source location

Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 6 · response
Published 12 February 2024

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 hazard-reporting and online safety systems are considered sufficient to record, action and provide relevant public safety information to inspectors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the time of the incident there existed and had existed for many years, a 24-hour hazard report line which enabled such reports to be received, logged and acted upon and there is no evidence, as became clear during the inquest, that such reports were received by the CA. In addition to this any observations made by CA staff (outside of formal inspections) or reported by the public through other channels are recorded through the CA’s online Health and Safety portal.”

Source location

Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 2 · response
Published 12 February 2024

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

Blanket installation of public rescue equipment is not considered appropriate because of vandalism, theft, misuse, limited effectiveness and potential encouragement of water access.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is, of course, important that any such procedure provides guidance on assessing the viability of the provision of such equipment and does not simply create a blanket policy requiring the same.”

Source location

Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 3 · response
Published 12 February 2024

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Re-run PSRA e-learning for inspectors and hold face-to-face workshops to reinforce consistent implementation and identify further process improvements.

    Stated by Mining Remediation AuthorityStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 February 2024.

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

Re-run PSRA e-learning for inspectors and hold face-to-face workshops to reinforce consistent implementation and identify further process improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To support the implementation of this process, those involved in the implementation and management of the scheme were required to complete a PSRA e-learning package, and to demonstrate competence before using the new toolkit in the field. New starters to the team have been trained to ensure they are competent to use the system.”

Source location

Response from Browne Jacobson
Page 5 · response
Published 12 February 2024

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026