PFD report

Marian Elizabeth CLODE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Dec 2020•Newcastle and North Tyneside

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
6

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 raised7

  1. Risk of serious injury or death to the public on public bridleways on or adjacent to working farms
  2. Unavailability of a usable secure gate at the entrance to the bridleway
  3. Lack of specific planning for the heightened risks of young calves during first release from winter shed
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.6

  1. Action

    Implement Right to Apply provisions enabling landowners to apply to local authorities to extinguish or divert public rights of way, with a right of appeal.

    Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 July 2021.
  2. Action

    Issue guidance encouraging local authorities to remove public rights of way from premises where privacy, safety or security is a significant concern.

    Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 July 2021.
  3. Action

    Move cattle one shed at a time without using the second holding area or bridleway gate as part of the movement plan.

    Stated by J. M. Nixon & SonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 July 2021.

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

  1. Position

    HSE is the enforcing authority responsible for incidents involving cattle on farms.

    Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Risk of serious injury or death to the public on public bridleways on or adjacent to working farms

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is a continuing risk to the public of serious injury or death in exercising their right to walk on public bridleways on or adjacent to working farms. (2) A robust system of Regulation of farming practice in the context of Public Rights of way and guidance to the public is necessary to mitigate that risk. ”

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

Unavailability of a usable secure gate at the entrance to the bridleway

Wider context from the report

“(3) Secure gate at the entrance to bridle way unable to be utilised due to direction of opening which with some limited alteration may have gone someway to mitigate the risk in this case. ”

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

Lack of specific planning for the heightened risks of young calves during first release from winter shed

Wider context from the report

“(1) Cattle movement being commonly undertaken in accordance with individual farmers “custom and practice” and in the absence of: a) formal plans for cattle movement (written or verbal) b) Contingency plans/strategies in the event of cattle breakout c) Specific planning in respect of the heightened risk associated with the presence of young calves and in the context of their first release from winter shed ”

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

Lack of formal cattle movement plans

Wider context from the report

“(1) Cattle movement being commonly undertaken in accordance with individual farmers “custom and practice” and in the absence of: a) formal plans for cattle movement (written or verbal) b) Contingency plans/strategies in the event of cattle breakout c) Specific planning in respect of the heightened risk associated with the presence of young calves and in the context of their first release from winter shed ”

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

Lack of contingency plans for cattle breakout

Wider context from the report

“(1) Cattle movement being commonly undertaken in accordance with individual farmers “custom and practice” and in the absence of: a) formal plans for cattle movement (written or verbal) b) Contingency plans/strategies in the event of cattle breakout c) Specific planning in respect of the heightened risk associated with the presence of young calves and in the context of their first release from winter shed ”

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

Failure to warn the public of impending cattle movement and its risks

Wider context from the report

“(2) Cattle movement undertaken without appropriate measures in place to mitigate the risks of cattle breakout: a) Cattle held prior to movement in a holding area pen which was insecure. Cattle contained only by quad bike and trailer (driven by farmer) at the front of the herd. b) No warning to the public of impending cattle movement and the risks thereof either by temporary warning signage or farm staff place at strategic points on the planned route to give verbal warning. ”

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

Failure to secure cattle in the holding area before movement

Wider context from the report

“(2) Cattle movement undertaken without appropriate measures in place to mitigate the risks of cattle breakout: a) Cattle held prior to movement in a holding area pen which was insecure. Cattle contained only by quad bike and trailer (driven by farmer) at the front of the herd. b) No warning to the public of impending cattle movement and the risks thereof either by temporary warning signage or farm staff place at strategic points on the planned route to give verbal warning. ”

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

Implement Right to Apply provisions enabling landowners to apply to local authorities to extinguish or divert public rights of way, with a right of appeal.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Defra are undertaking a package of reforms to the rights of way system which will lead to improvements in various areas, including an improved capacity for landowners to move certain rights of way on their land. Under provisions known as the ‘Right to Apply’, landowners will now be able to make formal applications to local authorities to extinguish or divert rights of way from their land with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority refuses or fails to respond. These applications will be considered on a case by case basis and the outcomes cannot be guaranteed. Guidance will however encourage local authorities to remove public rights of way wherever possible from premises where privacy, safety and security are of a significant concern, including family gardens and working farmyards.”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-DEFRA-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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

Issue guidance encouraging local authorities to remove public rights of way from premises where privacy, safety or security is a significant concern.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Defra are undertaking a package of reforms to the rights of way system which will lead to improvements in various areas, including an improved capacity for landowners to move certain rights of way on their land. Under provisions known as the ‘Right to Apply’, landowners will now be able to make formal applications to local authorities to extinguish or divert rights of way from their land with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority refuses or fails to respond. These applications will be considered on a case by case basis and the outcomes cannot be guaranteed. Guidance will however encourage local authorities to remove public rights of way wherever possible from premises where privacy, safety and security are of a significant concern, including family gardens and working farmyards.”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-DEFRA-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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

Move cattle one shed at a time without using the second holding area or bridleway gate as part of the movement plan.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. However, as stated at the Inquest hearing, cattle are not now moved into a second holding area requiring the use of any barrier at the entrance to the bridleway. That second holding area and the gate are no longer part of the movement plan. Cattle are moved one shed at a time so there is no need for this second holding area.”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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

Check the route before movement, warn walkers, and position staff ahead of cattle to manage public access during movement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The gate to the bridleway is left open and I ride my quadbike along the track to check the gates along it and to warn any walkers on the track. As I explained during my evidence at the inquest, I then return to the brow of the first hill. From this point I can”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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

Place warning signs around the farmyard to alert the public that cattle are being moved.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. We also now have "Warning – Cattle being Moved" signs which are placed around the farm yard to warn any members of the public coming up behind the sheds that cattle are being moved ahead of them.”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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

Revise the cattle-movement plan so all participants understand the plan and their roles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Whilst I maintain that there was a plan in place at the time of the incident I have revisited the plan and changes were made following the incident. The plan is not required to be documented but all parties involved understand the plan and their role in it.”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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

HSE is the enforcing authority responsible for incidents involving cattle on farms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have discussed the details of this specific case with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. HSE is the enforcing authority for incidents involving cattle on farms. HSE are already aware of this case and have provided the below information relevant to this situation. An overview of HSE procedures is published online:”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-DEFRA-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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 bridleway gate was not altered because its gradient and camber made outward opening difficult and potentially increased the risk of cattle breaking out.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The gate opens “inwards” (ie towards the sheds rather than away from them down the track). During a visit from representatives of the H.S.E. on 17th November 2020, it was discovered that, following some significant alterations, the gate can be opened outwards (away from the sheds). However, it has to be lifted, with significant effort, over the slope of the ground because of both the gradient of the track and its camber. That is, the gradient and camber are such that the gate hits the ground and cannot be pushed any further without it being lifted. This would clearly cause problems, and potentially increase the risk of cattle breaking out, if it were done at a time when cattle were about to be moved along the bridleway. This is the reason the gate had not been altered previously.”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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

Pre-movement route checks were considered sufficient to warn the public, and no HSE guidance required temporary warning signs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When giving evidence at the Inquest, ████████ stated that in his view the method of using the quadbike and trailer, together with my being at the side of those with the flexible stick, was a reasonable practice. It is accepted that at the time of the incident there was no temporary signage in place, as it was believed that the check of the route prior to the movement commencing was sufficient. No guidance issued by the H.S.E. suggests that signs should be used when moving cattle.”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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 cattle-movement plan need not be documented because all participants understand the plan and their roles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Whilst I maintain that there was a plan in place at the time of the incident I have revisited the plan and changes were made following the incident. The plan is not required to be documented but all parties involved understand the plan and their role in it.”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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 cattle-movement plan, including contingency arrangements and consideration of young calves, was already in place and reasonably managed the risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the suggestions that there was an absence of a formal plan for cattle movement, contingency plan or specific planning to take into account the presence of young calves, I would wish to make the following observations. Having heard all of the evidence, the HSE expert witness, ████████ confirmed in his evidence to the court that, in his opinion, the plan in place for the movement of the cattle was a reasonable one. In particular, he confirmed it was his view that the drive along the track to check for members of the public was carried out within a reasonable timeframe. In relation to my contingency plan, I had agreed that I had a contingency plan in place and that the plan to follow the herd, enter the field on the left hand side by the metal gate and travel up the field in order to overtake the cattle, was a reasonable one.”

Source location

2021-0228-Response-from-J-M-Nixon-Son-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 July 2021

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