Sopeluwa Babatunde Peters · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 May 2014•County Durham and Darlington

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an 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
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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. Absence of a handrail on steps
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate handrail safety on steps and access ramps
  2. Low riverside wall providing inadequate safety barrier
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls preventing falls from water-adjacent public routesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
  3. Poor illumination of steps
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Durham County Council

    Disseminate links to the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy and related partner-agency alcohol-reduction initiatives.

  2. Durham County Council

    Install a timber barrier beside the wall opposite Drury Lane’s exit to reduce the risk of falls into the river.

  3. Durham County Council

    Undertake a riverbank risk assessment with police representatives to identify locations associated with evening and night-time activity.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Durham County Council

    Lighting the location is not considered helpful because it would create dangerous light-dark contrast and lighting all riverbank paths is impractical and inappropriate.

    No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  2. Durham County Council

    The steps cannot be meaningfully modified because the path is too narrow to alleviate the steep slope.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  3. Durham County Council

    A handrail cannot readily be installed because the narrow path would be further obstructed and the adjoining walls are unsuitable for attachment.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 a handrail on steps

Wider context from the report

“(1) The steps are steep, poorly illuminated, with no handrail and on the evidence are said to be particularly difficult to negotiate at any time even more so by an individual who may be under the influence of alcohol. The wall at the riverside on the path opposite the steps/alleyway is only 690 mm’s high and does not create much of a safety barrier. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate handrail safety on steps and access ramps.

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

Low riverside wall providing inadequate safety barrier

Wider context from the report

“(1) The steps are steep, poorly illuminated, with no handrail and on the evidence are said to be particularly difficult to negotiate at any time even more so by an individual who may be under the influence of alcohol. The wall at the riverside on the path opposite the steps/alleyway is only 690 mm’s high and does not create much of a safety barrier. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls preventing falls from water-adjacent public routes; 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

Poor illumination of steps

Wider context from the report

“(1) The steps are steep, poorly illuminated, with no handrail and on the evidence are said to be particularly difficult to negotiate at any time even more so by an individual who may be under the influence of alcohol. The wall at the riverside on the path opposite the steps/alleyway is only 690 mm’s high and does not create much of a safety barrier. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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

Steep steps creating difficulty of negotiation

Wider context from the report

“(1) The steps are steep, poorly illuminated, with no handrail and on the evidence are said to be particularly difficult to negotiate at any time even more so by an individual who may be under the influence of alcohol. The wall at the riverside on the path opposite the steps/alleyway is only 690 mm’s high and does not create much of a safety barrier. ”

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

Disseminate links to the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy and related partner-agency alcohol-reduction initiatives.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This was a tragic case which highlights how young adults, in particular can come to harm when they are travelling alone at night significantly under the influence of alcohol which is an intrinsically perilous state. Addressing the risks caused by alcohol is a priority of this council and its partner agencies and I attach links to the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy: the County Durham Safe partnership pages on alcohol reductions and links to work being carried out in the city centre.”

Source location

2014-0206-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 May 2014

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 timber barrier beside the wall opposite Drury Lane’s exit to reduce the risk of falls into the river.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that whilst no action is being proposed in respect of the above mentioned matters, the Council will be installing a timber barrier in the riverside footpath, adjacent to the wall opposite the exit from Drury Lane. The installation of a barrier should reduce any potential risk of someone falling or running down the steps and going over the wall into the river at this location. This barrier will be placed within the footpath itself, as the path is within the control of the County Council. It is anticipated that this barrier will be installed within the next two weeks.”

Source location

2014-0206-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 May 2014

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 riverbank risk assessment with police representatives to identify locations associated with evening and night-time activity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The County Council will also be undertaking a risk assessment along sections of the river bank. This assessment will include representatives from the police who will identify locations, from their local knowledge of where there is a volume of evening and night time activity. If further risks are identified these will be assessed and action will be taken by the County Council to minimise such risks as is considered appropriate.”

Source location

2014-0206-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 May 2014

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

Lighting the location is not considered helpful because it would create dangerous light-dark contrast and lighting all riverbank paths is impractical and inappropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst lighting the location may assist, it would result in a lit area leading to unlit riverside paths, creating greater contrast between areas of light and dark. It is felt that lighting all the riverbank paths would be both impractical and inappropriate due to the detrimental effect on the setting of the World Heritage Site. On balance it is not considered helpful to light this location.”

Source location

2014-0206-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 May 2014

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 steps cannot be meaningfully modified because the path is too narrow to alleviate the steep slope.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With reference to your concern about the steepness of the steps and lack of handrail on Drury Lane; the lane has been inspected by the County Council’s Rights of Way Officer and he is satisfied that the steps themselves are in a good state of repair. It is acknowledged that these steps are steep, requiring some care when descending them. However, these steps have been in existence for a considerable period of time and to our knowledge there has been only one previous report of a tripping or slipping accident, and that defect was rectified. It is in any event difficult to see how these steps could be modified as the path is too narrow to achieve any meaningful alleviation of this slope.”

Source location

2014-0206-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 8 May 2014

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 handrail cannot readily be installed because the narrow path would be further obstructed and the adjoining walls are unsuitable for attachment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Turning to the provision of handrails; as mentioned in previous correspondence, due to the narrowness of the path it would be very difficult to install a handrail, because this would further reduce the width, which could be viewed as an obstacle by some footpath users. In any event the hand rails would need to be attached to the abutting walls, which are not within the County Council’s ownership. The walls have been inspected and are considered to be unsuitable for attaching rails of this nature because of their age, and in places the walls are in fairly fragile condition.”

Source location

2014-0206-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 8 May 2014

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