PFD report

Joseph William DENT · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Sep 2021•County Durham and Darlington

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
15

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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.

Concerns raised4

  1. Failure to prevent pedestrian access to the area where people falling from the bridge may land
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges
  2. Absence of monitored CCTV, lighting or other means of detecting people at immediate risk
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridgesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable CCTV detection and tracking of people at risk
  3. Failure to prevent pedestrians climbing over the bridge parapet
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridgesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
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.7

  1. Action

    Consider implementing lighting and CCTV at the viaduct through feasibility and planning processes.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
  2. Action

    Source an external consultant specialising in designing out suicide to progress viaduct prevention measures.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
  3. Action

    Work with local partnerships and elected members to discourage perceptions that the viaduct is a frequent suicide location.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.

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 prevent pedestrian access to the area where people falling from the bridge may land

Wider context from the report

“All concerns relate to the bridge, which carries a road and two footpaths up to around 30m (100ft) above the River Wear (1) the bridge’s parapet and railing is accessible to pedestrians on the bridge; (2) the bridge is frequently discussed on social media as suitable location for suicide by jumping; (3) there is absence of monitored CCTV and lighting or other means of detecting those at immediate risk; and (4) there is a risk of death to persons falling AND to those near the foot of the bridge at any time when persons fall Detective Sergeant ████████ gave evidence that: (a) there is pedestrian access to either side of the bridge; (b) the bridge lacks effective measures to prevent persons climbing over the parapet; (c) the bridge is “a well-known area for suicide” (and is openly discussed as such on social media); and that (d) police frequently (possibly as much as daily) have to attend the location in response to concerns about persons falling from the bridge. Photographs reveal that the area around the foot of the bridge, where falling objects or persons may land, is accessible to pedestrians. My records indicate that there have been four other deaths of persons falling from this bridge in the past five years; the conclusions in all of their inquests were suicide. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges.

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 monitored CCTV, lighting or other means of detecting people at immediate risk

Wider context from the report

“All concerns relate to the bridge, which carries a road and two footpaths up to around 30m (100ft) above the River Wear (1) the bridge’s parapet and railing is accessible to pedestrians on the bridge; (2) the bridge is frequently discussed on social media as suitable location for suicide by jumping; (3) there is absence of monitored CCTV and lighting or other means of detecting those at immediate risk; and (4) there is a risk of death to persons falling AND to those near the foot of the bridge at any time when persons fall Detective Sergeant ████████ gave evidence that: (a) there is pedestrian access to either side of the bridge; (b) the bridge lacks effective measures to prevent persons climbing over the parapet; (c) the bridge is “a well-known area for suicide” (and is openly discussed as such on social media); and that (d) police frequently (possibly as much as daily) have to attend the location in response to concerns about persons falling from the bridge. Photographs reveal that the area around the foot of the bridge, where falling objects or persons may land, is accessible to pedestrians. My records indicate that there have been four other deaths of persons falling from this bridge in the past five years; the conclusions in all of their inquests were suicide. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges; Unreliable CCTV detection and tracking of people at risk.

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 prevent pedestrians climbing over the bridge parapet

Wider context from the report

“All concerns relate to the bridge, which carries a road and two footpaths up to around 30m (100ft) above the River Wear (1) the bridge’s parapet and railing is accessible to pedestrians on the bridge; (2) the bridge is frequently discussed on social media as suitable location for suicide by jumping; (3) there is absence of monitored CCTV and lighting or other means of detecting those at immediate risk; and (4) there is a risk of death to persons falling AND to those near the foot of the bridge at any time when persons fall Detective Sergeant ████████ gave evidence that: (a) there is pedestrian access to either side of the bridge; (b) the bridge lacks effective measures to prevent persons climbing over the parapet; (c) the bridge is “a well-known area for suicide” (and is openly discussed as such on social media); and that (d) police frequently (possibly as much as daily) have to attend the location in response to concerns about persons falling from the bridge. Photographs reveal that the area around the foot of the bridge, where falling objects or persons may land, is accessible to pedestrians. My records indicate that there have been four other deaths of persons falling from this bridge in the past five years; the conclusions in all of their inquests were suicide. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges; Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

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

Bridge frequently identified as a location for suicide by jumping

Wider context from the report

“All concerns relate to the bridge, which carries a road and two footpaths up to around 30m (100ft) above the River Wear (1) the bridge’s parapet and railing is accessible to pedestrians on the bridge; (2) the bridge is frequently discussed on social media as suitable location for suicide by jumping; (3) there is absence of monitored CCTV and lighting or other means of detecting those at immediate risk; and (4) there is a risk of death to persons falling AND to those near the foot of the bridge at any time when persons fall Detective Sergeant ████████ gave evidence that: (a) there is pedestrian access to either side of the bridge; (b) the bridge lacks effective measures to prevent persons climbing over the parapet; (c) the bridge is “a well-known area for suicide” (and is openly discussed as such on social media); and that (d) police frequently (possibly as much as daily) have to attend the location in response to concerns about persons falling from the bridge. Photographs reveal that the area around the foot of the bridge, where falling objects or persons may land, is accessible to pedestrians. My records indicate that there have been four other deaths of persons falling from this bridge in the past five years; the conclusions in all of their inquests were suicide. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Consider implementing lighting and CCTV at the viaduct through feasibility and planning processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Consideration of the potential to implement lighting and CCTV on the viaduct (subject to a Feasibility Study and Planning Application).”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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

Source an external consultant specialising in designing out suicide to progress viaduct prevention measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This more detailed work also includes the requirement for assessments on the impact for road traffic accidents if a barrier was to be installed, Listed Building Consent, Planning Consent and a full design and approval process. The council is currently sourcing an external consultant versed in the speciality of ‘designing out suicide’ to progress next steps. Any changes made to the viaduct will depend on the ability of the structure’s foundations to host any suggested measures whilst also accommodating wind speeds and the needs of local residents, road users, cyclists and conservation. A provisional date for the completion of this assessment work still requires formal confirmation from the provider.”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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

Work with local partnerships and elected members to discourage perceptions that the viaduct is a frequent suicide location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Floral tributes for those involved in road traffic accidents may exacerbate the perception that suicides from this location are frequent. We have worked with the council’s Area Action Partnership and local Elected Members to try and address these perceptions without drawing further attention to this and discourage it as a frequency location.”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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 detailed design and approval assessments for a potential additional parapet fence, including structural, traffic, heritage and planning considerations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2018, the Council’s Public Health department produced a High Frequency Location Report for Suicide Prevention, which reviewed a number of high-risk geographical locations across County Durham, including Newton Cap Viaduct. This review initiated a Feasibility Study (2019) which was undertaken to assess options for any suicide prevention measures specifically for Newton Cap Viaduct. After the unprecedented public health protection pressures on the Council during the Covid-19 pandemic subsided, a further options appraisal was developed, and a preferred option (Option 1) was identified. On 15th September 2021, the Council’s Corporate Management Team (CMT) requested further detailed work be undertaken on Option 1 to consider the possibility of mounting an additional fence to the face of the concrete parapet upstand of the structure on both east and west elevations.”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Complete high-risk-location review, feasibility study and options appraisal to identify a preferred suicide-prevention measure for Newton Cap Viaduct.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2018, the Council’s Public Health department produced a High Frequency Location Report for Suicide Prevention, which reviewed a number of high-risk geographical locations across County Durham, including Newton Cap Viaduct. This review initiated a Feasibility Study (2019) which was undertaken to assess options for any suicide prevention measures specifically for Newton Cap Viaduct. After the unprecedented public health protection pressures on the Council during the Covid-19 pandemic subsided, a further options appraisal was developed, and a preferred option (Option 1) was identified. On 15th September 2021, the Council’s Corporate Management Team (CMT) requested further detailed work be undertaken on Option 1 to consider the possibility of mounting an additional fence to the face of the concrete parapet upstand of the structure on both east and west elevations.”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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

Promote sensitive suicide reporting and positive mental-health messages through media liaison and corporate social-media channels.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of your concerns about the reporting of potential deaths by suicide on social media, this provides a challenge for all local councils. Work is taking place on a regional Integrated Care System (ICS) basis to explore methods for addressing the issue directly with social media companies. However, the County Durham Public Health Department continues to advocate recommendations made within Samaritans Media Guidance and regularly liaises with media outlets to help promote sensitive reporting on suicides. Corporate social media methods are also used to promote positive mental health and wellbeing messages to de-escalate public perceptions. Samaritan signage is present on Newton Cap Viaduct with relevant support phone numbers for those finding themselves in distress. https://media.samaritans.org/documents/Media_Guidelines_FINAL_v2_TABa8C6.pdf”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Assess whether lighting and CCTV can be implemented at an earlier stage as part of the viaduct prevention work.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The assessment process will also include any potential for lighting and CCTV to be implemented at an earlier stage (yet to be confirmed), which addresses concerns raised in the Regulation 28 report. A Suicide Prevention Reference Group has been initiated to project manage this work and govern the representation of residents and people using the viaduct and the paths below. This group met for the first time on 11th October 2021. Full updates from this group on progress of this work can be given to your Office on a regular basis.”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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.8

  1. 1

    Disseminate community mental-health and wellbeing support information through GPs, schools, local partnerships and workplaces.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
  2. 2

    Maintain Samaritan support signage with relevant telephone numbers at Newton Cap Viaduct.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
  3. 3

    Continue working with police colleagues to improve data fields identifying call-outs relating to attempted suicide.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
  4. 4

    Mobilise educational psychologists, CAMHS crisis teams and emergency departments to fast-track early interventions.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
  5. 5

    Operate the Real Time Data Surveillance system to monitor potential suicides and trigger multi-agency assurance reviews.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
  6. 6

    Provide suicide-prevention training to local community and voluntary-sector organisations.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
  7. 7

    Use the Suicide Prevention Reference Group to project-manage the viaduct prevention work and represent residents and path users.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
  8. 8

    Engage If U Care Share as the commissioned post-vention referral service.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Council data indicates three suicides since 2014, disputing the report’s suggestion that the higher figure occurred during the previous five years.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Disseminate community mental-health and wellbeing support information through GPs, schools, local partnerships and workplaces.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The death of Mr Dent triggered a MAAR on 24th June 2021, which resulted in a community response in the Bishop Auckland area. This comprised of action including:”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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 Samaritan support signage with relevant telephone numbers at Newton Cap Viaduct.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of your concerns about the reporting of potential deaths by suicide on social media, this provides a challenge for all local councils. Work is taking place on a regional Integrated Care System (ICS) basis to explore methods for addressing the issue directly with social media companies. However, the County Durham Public Health Department continues to advocate recommendations made within Samaritans Media Guidance and regularly liaises with media outlets to help promote sensitive reporting on suicides. Corporate social media methods are also used to promote positive mental health and wellbeing messages to de-escalate public perceptions. Samaritan signage is present on Newton Cap Viaduct with relevant support phone numbers for those finding themselves in distress. https://media.samaritans.org/documents/Media_Guidelines_FINAL_v2_TABa8C6.pdf”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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

Continue working with police colleagues to improve data fields identifying call-outs relating to attempted suicide.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, there seems to be a small discrepancy in the Regulation 28 Report data suggesting this is over the last 5-years. Data supplied by County Durham Fire Service indicates they have received 10 calls to the viaduct since 2009 (YTD) relating to suspected suicides/suicide attempts. Durham Constabulary data suggests they received 37 call outs for the period September 2020 to August 2021 relating to concern, collapse, injury or illness. However, this data cannot be disaggregated to be more specific in relation to suicide attempts. We are trying to rectify this issue by continuing to work with police colleagues to enable their data fields to reflect the number of call outs relating to attempted suicide.”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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

Mobilise educational psychologists, CAMHS crisis teams and emergency departments to fast-track early interventions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The death of Mr Dent triggered a MAAR on 24th June 2021, which resulted in a community response in the Bishop Auckland area. This comprised of action including:”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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 Real Time Data Surveillance system to monitor potential suicides and trigger multi-agency assurance reviews.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you are aware, we have developed a Real Time Data Surveillance (RTDS) system which works in partnership with your Office to monitor potential deaths by suicide in County Durham. Any deaths occurring within a particular timeframe (between 6-12-months), within a specific geographical location, or indicating the potential for social connections between deaths initiates a Multi-agency Assurance Review (MAAR) meeting. The MAAR enables partners to consider any community response required to prevent the rippling effect of the death as recommended by PHE. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/839621/PHE_Suicide_Cluster_Guide.pdf”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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 suicide-prevention training to local community and voluntary-sector organisations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The death of Mr Dent triggered a MAAR on 24th June 2021, which resulted in a community response in the Bishop Auckland area. This comprised of action including:”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Use the Suicide Prevention Reference Group to project-manage the viaduct prevention work and represent residents and path users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The assessment process will also include any potential for lighting and CCTV to be implemented at an earlier stage (yet to be confirmed), which addresses concerns raised in the Regulation 28 report. A Suicide Prevention Reference Group has been initiated to project manage this work and govern the representation of residents and people using the viaduct and the paths below. This group met for the first time on 11th October 2021. Full updates from this group on progress of this work can be given to your Office on a regular basis.”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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

Engage If U Care Share as the commissioned post-vention referral service.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The death of Mr Dent triggered a MAAR on 24th June 2021, which resulted in a community response in the Bishop Auckland area. This comprised of action including:”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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

Council data indicates three suicides since 2014, disputing the report’s suggestion that the higher figure occurred during the previous five years.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Council’s RTDS system suggests there have been 3 deaths by suicide since 2014.”

Source location

2021-0297-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2021

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026