PFD report

Colette Hughes · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Jun 2015•South London

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. Insufficiency of notices advising visitors of Samaritans services
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate suicide-prevention signage at public locations
  2. Failure to physically modify an easily accessible wall to prevent dangerous use as a seating area
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
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.4

  1. Action

    Install hostile planting around lower parapet walls on Levels 3 and 3A where potential falls exceed five metres.

    Stated by Hammerson PLCStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 June 2015.
  2. Action

    Install vehicle stopping barriers beside relevant lower parapet walls to prevent vehicles being used as steps.

    Stated by Hammerson PLCStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 June 2015.
  3. Action

    Continue exploring the feasibility of raising parapet walls on Levels 3 and 3A, including required planning and building-regulations approvals.

    Stated by Hammerson PLCStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 June 2015.

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

Insufficiency of notices advising visitors of Samaritans services

Wider context from the report

“The wall is easy to access and at least two previous deaths have occurred in similar circumstances since 2006. Whilst recognising that barriers cannot be provided at every location above ground, and the fact that the building complies with regulations , there is a concern that others may die in the same manner. There is also a concern that the wall presents a danger to those who may decide to use it as a seating area, particularly after taking drink or drugs. In the absence of some physical modifications, the notices advising visitors of the services of the Samaritans recently installed may not be sufficient. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate suicide-prevention signage at public 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

Failure to physically modify an easily accessible wall to prevent dangerous use as a seating area

Wider context from the report

“The wall is easy to access and at least two previous deaths have occurred in similar circumstances since 2006. Whilst recognising that barriers cannot be provided at every location above ground, and the fact that the building complies with regulations , there is a concern that others may die in the same manner. There is also a concern that the wall presents a danger to those who may decide to use it as a seating area, particularly after taking drink or drugs. In the absence of some physical modifications, the notices advising visitors of the services of the Samaritans recently installed may not be sufficient. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

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

Install hostile planting around lower parapet walls on Levels 3 and 3A where potential falls exceed five metres.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.2. Generally to prevent the lower (less than 1.8m) level walls on levels 3 and 3A (rooftop level) which are under 1.8m in height potentially being used by members of the public to lever themselves up onto the perimeter ledge, we are installing similar hostile planting which will prevent access in those areas where the potential fall distance is over 5 metres i.e. beyond the next car park level.”

Source location

2015-0246-Response-by-Hammerson-PLC
Page 1 · response
Published 30 June 2015

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 vehicle stopping barriers beside relevant lower parapet walls to prevent vehicles being used as steps.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.3. In order to prevent cars from parking close to any lower level parapet walls we are installing vehicle stopping barriers along the floor adjacent to the walls in the relevant locations. This will prevent cars being used as a step up to a perimeter wall by members of the public (Appendix A).”

Source location

2015-0246-Response-by-Hammerson-PLC
Page 1 · response
Published 30 June 2015

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 exploring the feasibility of raising parapet walls on Levels 3 and 3A, including required planning and building-regulations approvals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Following receipt of the Report we commissioned structural engineers to advise on the feasibility of raising the height of the parapet walls on levels 3 and 3A. Their report (received on 14th August 2015) in summary advised how this could be achieved but would involve regulatory planning and building regulations approval. This is currently being explored.”

Source location

2015-0246-Response-by-Hammerson-PLC
Page 2 · response
Published 30 June 2015

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 hostile planting to make access to the Level 3 corner parapet walls more difficult.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.1. We are making access to the parapet walls to the corner of the car park from which Colette Hughes fell (Level 3) more difficult with ‘hostile planting’ being introduced which in particular will assist in preventing access. For an example of how hostile planting is introduced see Appendix A.”

Source location

2015-0246-Response-by-Hammerson-PLC
Page 1 · response
Published 30 June 2015

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