PFD report

William Anthony Elvis WEBB · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Feb 2026•Cheshire

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
4

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. Lack of nearby signage alerting people to the potential risks of the canal
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate warnings about location-specific hazards at public waterside locations
  2. Lack of means for people to get out of the canal unaided
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for drowning risks at open-water locationsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate public water-rescue equipment and arrangements
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.1

  1. Action

    Coordinate with the Water Safety Partnership and relevant landowners to identify and discuss potential additional water-safety mitigation measures.

    Stated by Canal & River TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 3 March 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Direct action on public-realm water safety risks is limited because the surrounding land is not owned or controlled by the respondent.

    Stated by Canal & River TrustUnable 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

Lack of nearby signage alerting people to the potential risks of the canal

Wider context from the report

“The area in which Mr Webb fell into the canal is close to student accommodation. Whilst this is a generalisation and is by no means all students, students as a group are within the demographic of people who will attend the bars, pubs and nightclubs of Chester and become inebriated to varying degrees. Once under the influence of alcohol, or perhaps another substance, it is then not inconceivable that they then take less care/ are more willing to engage in risky behaviours. The canal is near to their accommodation, which makes it more likely that they will be in that area. Once in the water, there is currently no safety equipment which could assist someone in getting out, whether they are in accidentally or intentionally, and the distance between the water level and the ground edge (the freeboard), is, in my view, such that it would be difficult to get out without assistance. There is also no signage nearby which alerts people to the potential risks. I heard varying evidence as to the depth of the water, with the police describing it as around 5ft, and the Canal and River Trust indicating it was around 1 metre. ”

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

Lack of means for people to get out of the canal unaided

Wider context from the report

“The area in which Mr Webb fell into the canal is close to student accommodation. Whilst this is a generalisation and is by no means all students, students as a group are within the demographic of people who will attend the bars, pubs and nightclubs of Chester and become inebriated to varying degrees. Once under the influence of alcohol, or perhaps another substance, it is then not inconceivable that they then take less care/ are more willing to engage in risky behaviours. The canal is near to their accommodation, which makes it more likely that they will be in that area. Once in the water, there is currently no safety equipment which could assist someone in getting out, whether they are in accidentally or intentionally, and the distance between the water level and the ground edge (the freeboard), is, in my view, such that it would be difficult to get out without assistance. There is also no signage nearby which alerts people to the potential risks. I heard varying evidence as to the depth of the water, with the police describing it as around 5ft, and the Canal and River Trust indicating it was around 1 metre. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for drowning risks at open-water locations; Inadequate public water-rescue equipment and arrangements.

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

Coordinate with the Water Safety Partnership and relevant landowners to identify and discuss potential additional water-safety mitigation measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Consequently and to address the specific risks presented by the public realm over which the Trust has no control, I have, on behalf of the Trust, requested the WSP’s support in writing to relevant riparian owners of the land surrounding the Shropshire and Union Canal, inviting them to a meeting to discuss what further steps can be taken collectively, or on an individual basis to provide additional mitigation of water safety risks in this area. Layout of the public realm, signage, lighting and the provision of Personal Rescue Equipment are to be raised, the necessity and benefit of which will be considered alongside issues such as the depth of the water and the height of the freeboard. We will work proactively with the WSP and the relevant landowners to identify where such measures may be implemented/improved and provide advice and assistance where we are able to do so.”

Source location

Response from Canal & River Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 3 March 2026

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

Direct action on public-realm water safety risks is limited because the surrounding land is not owned or controlled by the respondent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As indicated in the Trust’s initial response (dated 3rd of February 2026) to your questions preceding the Inquest, the land surrounding the Shropshire Union Canal in the vicinity of the University accommodation, and crucially where Mr Webb entered the water, is not owned by the Trust. This presents a number of challenges and limits the actions we are able to take directly. Notwithstanding and following the Inquest and the concerns raised in the Regulation 28 Report (dated 26th February 2026), the Trust has taken the following actions:”

Source location

Response from Canal & River Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 3 March 2026

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.3

  1. 1

    Determine ownership of land surrounding the canal near the university accommodation and water-entry location.

    Stated by Canal & River TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 3 March 2026.
  2. 2

    Update the coroner and Mr Webb’s family on progress of the stated actions.

    Stated by Canal & River TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 March 2026.
  3. 3

    Approach the University of Chester to develop targeted educational water-safety campaigns for students.

    Stated by Canal & River TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 March 2026.

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

Determine ownership of land surrounding the canal near the university accommodation and water-entry location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Trust is currently working with the Cheshire Water Safety Partnership (the “WSP”), Cheshire Fire & Rescue Services and Cheshire West & Chester Council to determine the ownership of the land surrounding the Shropshire and Union Canal, in the vicinity of the University accommodation and the location where Mr Webb entered the water, in order to determine what can be done.”

Source location

Response from Canal & River Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 3 March 2026

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

Update the coroner and Mr Webb’s family on progress of the stated actions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Trust will update HM Coroner and the family of Mr. Webb on progress of the above actions.”

Source location

Response from Canal & River Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 3 March 2026

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

Approach the University of Chester to develop targeted educational water-safety campaigns for students.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The Trust shares the consensus with RoSPA, RLSS and the Fire & Rescue Services that education and prevention have proved to be the most effective tools in improving water safety. The Trust run an extensive range of annual campaigns, both individually and in conjunction with partners across the 13 water safety partnerships we are involved with across the region. We also run focussed campaigns which we have developed and adapted where areas of risk have become apparent. Following this tragedy the Trust, along with the support of others (including the WSG and the RNLI), will be approaching the University of Chester with the specific aim of working with them to provide targeted, effective and educational water safety campaigns to its students.”

Source location

Response from Canal & River Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 3 March 2026

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