PFD report

Stefan Gareth EVANS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Oct 2019•Staffordshire South

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised2

  1. Hazardous traffic speed on the B5017 between Needwood and Burton
  2. Hazardous traffic volume on the B5017 between Needwood and Burton
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.3

  1. Action

    Investigate whether the B5017 section can be included in another funded local-area scheme.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 November 2019.
  2. Action

    Complete speed and volume surveys to assess vehicle speeds and traffic levels on the B5017 section.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 November 2019.
  3. Action

    Examine the collision history at the B5017 location to assess whether remedial road-safety measures are warranted.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 November 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    The site will not otherwise be considered for traffic-calming measures at this time because collision data shows no demonstrable need.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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

Hazardous traffic speed on the B5017 between Needwood and Burton

Wider context from the report

“I am aware that following this collision you did make some enquiries concerning this stretch of road (B5017 between Needwood and Burton). However there does appear to be a genuine continuing concern about the volume and speed of traffic on this road, bearing in mind the various junctions that there are. I would not ask you to repeat work you have already done, but I wonder if there should be a further review of this stretch of road to see if any steps should be taken to improve its safety. ”

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

Hazardous traffic volume on the B5017 between Needwood and Burton

Wider context from the report

“I am aware that following this collision you did make some enquiries concerning this stretch of road (B5017 between Needwood and Burton). However there does appear to be a genuine continuing concern about the volume and speed of traffic on this road, bearing in mind the various junctions that there are. I would not ask you to repeat work you have already done, but I wonder if there should be a further review of this stretch of road to see if any steps should be taken to improve its safety. ”

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

Investigate whether the B5017 section can be included in another funded local-area scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In summary, based on the collision data we hold for this location, the site would otherwise not be considered for any traffic calming measures at this time. However, there is a possibility that it will be feasible to include this section of Burton Road as part of another funded scheme in the local area, and we are investigating this possibility. Throughout these investigations, we will endeavour to keep ████████ informed.”

Source location

2019-0339-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 10 November 2019

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 speed and volume surveys to assess vehicle speeds and traffic levels on the B5017 section.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the 14th February, a Hazard Report Card was received from ████████ requesting we “assess the need for a reduction on the speed limit and the addition of signage to indicate the presence of hidden entrances”. A speed and volume survey to ascertain vehicle speeds was undertaken during the 10th and 19th July and 85th percentile speeds of 56mph in both directions over a 24-hour period were recorded. These speeds indicate good compliance to the National Speed Limit; however, we received a report highlighting that it was felt that these speeds did not represent a true reflection of vehicle speeds travelling on this section of the B5017.”

Source location

2019-0339-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019

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

Examine the collision history at the B5017 location to assess whether remedial road-safety measures are warranted.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the collision in January, as is the process following all fatal road traffic collisions; the collision history at this location was examined. The search concluded that no personal injury collisions had been recorded within 300m of where the fatal collision took place within the latest three years of complete data that we had available at the time. When the search area was widened, two slight personal injury collisions have been recorded on the stretch of B5017 between Five Ways Island, Needwood and the change of speed limit east of the Acorn Inn.”

Source location

2019-0339-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 10 November 2019

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 site will not otherwise be considered for traffic-calming measures at this time because collision data shows no demonstrable need.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In summary, based on the collision data we hold for this location, the site would otherwise not be considered for any traffic calming measures at this time. However, there is a possibility that it will be feasible to include this section of Burton Road as part of another funded scheme in the local area, and we are investigating this possibility. Throughout these investigations, we will endeavour to keep ████████ informed.”

Source location

2019-0339-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 10 November 2019

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

Speed enforcement by fixed cameras or mobile camera vans will not be initiated because the required criteria have not been met.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These speeds again highlight good compliance to the National Speed Limit. Based on this data, speed enforcement activities either by fixed cameras or mobile camera vans would not be initiated as criteria has not been met. There was a slight increase in vehicle volume for the second survey as an average (7-day average) of 6526 vehicle speeds were recorded over a 24-hour period compared to 6153 vehicles for the first survey.”

Source location

2019-0339-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019

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 collision history does not indicate a requirement for speed-reducing features at this location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the collision in January, as is the process following all fatal road traffic collisions; the collision history at this location was examined. The search concluded that no personal injury collisions had been recorded within 300m of where the fatal collision took place within the latest three years of complete data that we had available at the time. When the search area was widened, two slight personal injury collisions have been recorded on the stretch of B5017 between Five Ways Island, Needwood and the change of speed limit east of the Acorn Inn.”

Source location

2019-0339-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 10 November 2019

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

A 40mph limit is unlikely to succeed without costly engineering measures, which limited highway-improvement budgets do not readily support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the Inquest, I received a letter from ████████ dated the 18th October where an invitation was made to visit their property. On Friday 22nd November, ████████ (Strategic Community Infrastructure Manager) and ████████ (Road Safety Manager) met with ████████ at their property. A request for a speed limit reduction was made, however it was explained that the budget available to the Council for highway improvements is extremely limited and reducing speed limits is usually accompanied by additional robust measures such as lining, signage, carriageway narrowing, gateway features or build outs – in order to help promote good compliance with the lower limit.”

Source location

2019-0339-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019

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

  1. 1

    Additional signage for concealed private entrances cannot be considered because no prescribed sign exists under the relevant regulations.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 signage for concealed private entrances cannot be considered because no prescribed sign exists under the relevant regulations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding the request for additional signage to indicate the presence of private accesses onto Burton Road, there is no prescribed sign within the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions for concealed entrances and therefore this is not an option we can consider.”

Source location

2019-0339-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 10 November 2019

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