Jack Edward Braniff · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Jun 2017•Manchester North

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
2

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 raised2

  1. Failure to fully consider road safety when deciding the size, position and location of illuminated advertising boards on public highways
  2. Reduction in tree looping resulting in overhanging canopies that compound road visibility issues
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to control vegetation that obstructs safety-critical visibility

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Unity Partnership

    Review the tree-pruning process to identify safety improvements.

  2. Unity Partnership

    Ensure the tree-pruning programme continues as efficiently as possible.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Unity Partnership

    PFI maintenance and night inspections monitor tree-canopy effects on lighting, with required trimming and pruning programmed as soon as reasonably practicable.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. Unity Partnership

    Current powers make controlling removal timing and monitoring illumination of empty advertising signs impracticable and difficult to enforce.

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

    The advertisement-consent process already considers visual impact, amenity and highway safety when assessing illuminated advertising applications.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  4. Unity Partnership

    The A669 lighting complies with the applicable British Standard, exceeds the required classification, and provides good contrast at key crossing points.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  5. Unity Partnership

    The particular advertising sign does not restrict junction visibility or adversely affect pedestrians using nearby controlled crossings.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 fully consider road safety when deciding the size, position and location of illuminated advertising boards on public highways

Wider context from the report

“1. The evidence was that the size and position of the illuminated advertising board at the site of the collision obstructed pedestrians’ view of the road and drivers’ view of pedestrians. The concern is to ensure that road safety is fully considered when decisions are made about the size, position and location of illuminated advertising boards on public highways. ”

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

Reduction in tree looping resulting in overhanging canopies that compound road visibility issues

Wider context from the report

“2. The overhanging tree canopies at the site of the collision compounded the visibility issues which led to this death. The evidence suggested that there is a nexus between a reduction in the tree looping in the Greater Manchester area and an increase in road traffic collisions. The concern is that if this continues, it may lead to further fatalities. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to control vegetation that obstructs safety-critical visibility.

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

Review the tree-pruning process to identify safety improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In light of the concerns that you have raised the Council will ensure the tree pruning program continues as efficiently as possible and is committed to reviewing the process and will implement practical improvements where appropriate.”

Source location

2017-0183-Response-by-Unity-Partnership
Page 3 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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

Ensure the tree-pruning programme continues as efficiently as possible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of the PFI agreement contract described above, the detrimental effect that overgrown tree canopies have on lanterns is monitored through a combination of routine maintenance and night time inspection regimes. Where trimming and pruning is required the work is programmed to be carried out as soon as reasonably practicable.”

Source location

2017-0183-Response-by-Unity-Partnership
Page 3 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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

PFI maintenance and night inspections monitor tree-canopy effects on lighting, with required trimming and pruning programmed as soon as reasonably practicable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Oldham Council currently manages its Street Lighting network under a PFI Contract with the neighbouring Borough of Rochdale in what is termed the Community Lighting Partnership (CLP). Our Contract is with the CLP where the appointed Sub-Contractor E-on carries out all the day to day operations to align with the project’s Output Specification.”

Source location

2017-0183-Response-by-Unity-Partnership
Page 3 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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

Current powers make controlling removal timing and monitoring illumination of empty advertising signs impracticable and difficult to enforce.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To restrict the level of visual contrast that occurs when the sign is illuminated whilst empty, under our current powers it would be impossible to control when an advert was removed and difficult to monitor whether the empty sign was illuminated or not. Planning conditions are not generally attached to control the continued illumination because of the difficulties that would be encountered in trying to enforce this.”

Source location

2017-0183-Response-by-Unity-Partnership
Page 2 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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 advertisement-consent process already considers visual impact, amenity and highway safety when assessing illuminated advertising applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The placement of advertising on the highway is controlled by “The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007”.”

Source location

2017-0183-Response-by-Unity-Partnership
Page 2 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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 A669 lighting complies with the applicable British Standard, exceeds the required classification, and provides good contrast at key crossing points.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, the recent survey has confirmed that the lighting level along this section of the A669 Middleton Road is compliant with the British Standard. It is worth noting that the levels achieve ME 2 classification which is in fact a higher standard than is required for a road of this category; on roads such this, a lighting classification of ME 3 would be acceptable. Furthermore, by positioning the street lighting columns at the main crossing points we are able provide good negative contrast at key locations where conflicts occur.”

Source location

2017-0183-Response-by-Unity-Partnership
Page 3 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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 particular advertising sign does not restrict junction visibility or adversely affect pedestrians using nearby controlled crossings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the impact of the particular advertising sign on Middleton Road, its location does not restrict visibility at the nearby junction of Milne Street, and is set far enough back from the kerb edge to allow vehicles to travel along Middleton Road safely. There are existing controlled pedestrian crossings nearby and I do not consider that the siting of the sign would adversely impact on pedestrians using these crossings.”

Source location

2017-0183-Response-by-Unity-Partnership
Page 2 · response
Published 4 August 2017

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