PFD report

Dorothy Elizabeth Wagstaff · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Jul 2025•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Presence of plastic barriers in gaps in road barrier railings
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic
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.5

  1. Action

    Raise works orders after emergency site visits and progress engineered solutions through appraisal, issue, programming and implementation.

    Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Stated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 July 2025.
  2. Action

    Review and improve the process from emergency incident response through permanent highway reinstatement.

    Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Stated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 July 2025.
  3. Action

    Continue the detailed options appraisal for a permanent safety solution at the affected A660 location.

    Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Stated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 July 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Heavy-duty water-filled barriers were considered appropriate interim measures, providing continuous demarcation and visible warning while permanent repairs were programmed.

    Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so 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

Presence of plastic barriers in gaps in road barrier railings

Wider context from the report

“(2) Upon examining photographs of the scene, the road barrier/railings and sections of the road, it was noted that plastic barriers similar to those referred to in the Record of Inquest above were present in another section of the A660 Leeds Road. (3) Within the evidence adduced at the inquest, it was noted that Leeds City Council Highways Department have indicated that a schedule of works will be created with a view to replacing the old concrete and metal pole barriers with metal pedestrian railings in this area of the A660. (4) The concern that I raise is that photographs considered at the inquest indicated the on-going presence of plastic barriers in a gap in the existing barrier/railings elsewhere along the stretch of road. Plastic barriers were a factor in the circumstances of the accident in which Mrs Langstaff sadly died. If that remains the case, I am of the view that action should be taken to prevent a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

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

Raise works orders after emergency site visits and progress engineered solutions through appraisal, issue, programming and implementation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“now able to utilize a newly implemented computer monitoring system (AMX) to better track the location of temporary repairs, in this case the installation of heavy-duty water filled barriers and monitor progress to completion of permanent repair. Moving forward works orders will be raised immediately following an emergency site visit to allow an engineering options appraisal to take place. Once a suitable engineered solution has been determined, the works will then be issued, programmed and implemented. This improved process has the aim of ensuring permanent repairs are made within an appropriate timeframe.”

Source location

Response from Leeds City Council
Page 3 · response
Published 23 July 2025

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

Review and improve the process from emergency incident response through permanent highway reinstatement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following this accident and the receipt of your letter, Leeds City Council Highways Department have commenced a detailed review of the process from when we attend site following an incident to make the location ‘safe’ for the public to continue to use the highway, through to the reinstatement of a permanent solution. This review has highlighted that we are”

Source location

Response from Leeds City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2025

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 the detailed options appraisal for a permanent safety solution at the affected A660 location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Therefore, several alternative permanent solutions are being considered as part of an ongoing detailed options appraisal. These option appraisals have included provision of Galvanised steel safety barrier (Arco barrier), Moorland markers post, Rebound marker posts, bollards, pedestrian guardrail and Trief (vehicle retainment) kerbing. The Trief kerb solution is currently looking the preferred option from an engineering, highway limitation and aesthetic perspective for this specific location and the other section along this length of the A660 where damage has occurred to the historical concrete post and rail fencing.”

Source location

Response from Leeds City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2025

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 newly implemented AMX monitoring system to track temporary repairs and permanent-repair progress.

Verbatim wording from the response

“now able to utilize a newly implemented computer monitoring system (AMX) to better track the location of temporary repairs, in this case the installation of heavy-duty water filled barriers and monitor progress to completion of permanent repair. Moving forward works orders will be raised immediately following an emergency site visit to allow an engineering options appraisal to take place. Once a suitable engineered solution has been determined, the works will then be issued, programmed and implemented. This improved process has the aim of ensuring permanent repairs are made within an appropriate timeframe.”

Source location

Response from Leeds City Council
Page 3 · response
Published 23 July 2025

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 safety assessments at other locations with defective fencing or barriers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Similar detailed assessments will be undertaken at other locations with defects and the appropriate solution implemented when practicable. This is to try and prevent future incidents from occurring.”

Source location

Response from Leeds City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2025

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

Heavy-duty water-filled barriers were considered appropriate interim measures, providing continuous demarcation and visible warning while permanent repairs were programmed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that the placement of temporary traffic management measures in response to incident management, with the aim to highlight a damaged area or potential hazard to other motorists is a standard industry approach, as defined in the Department for Transports, Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 8, Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations.”

Source location

Response from Leeds City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 23 July 2025

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

    Metal pedestrian guardrails were dismissed because they would reduce footway width unacceptably for wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs.

    Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Unable 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

Metal pedestrian guardrails were dismissed because they would reduce footway width unacceptably for wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(3) Within the evidence adduced at the inquest, it was noted that Leeds City Council Highways Department have indicated that a schedule of works will be created with a view to replacing the old concrete and metal pole barriers with metal pedestrian railings in this area of the A660.”

Source location

Response from Leeds City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2025

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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026