PFD report

Charlotte Marie SAUNDERS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Jun 2026•Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in 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. Failure to provide pedestrian guardrails at a primary informal crossing location
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart 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.2

  1. Action

    Assess national pedestrian-guardrail guidance and alternative measures to encourage safer pedestrian crossing routes at the Christchurch Way location.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 September 2026.
  2. Action

    Extend the Stone active-travel and structural-maintenance study area to include the Christchurch Way pedestrian desire-line crossing location.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 2026.

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

  1. Position

    Additional pedestrian guardrails cannot be adopted straightforwardly because they may obstruct vehicle visibility or redirect pedestrians into the carriageway.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilUnable 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

Failure to provide pedestrian guardrails at a primary informal crossing location

Wider context from the report

“I have concern that there is a risk of future deaths as a result of the current layout of this location, given the following: 1. The ring road is a busy road with heavy, consistent traffic flow, this being a bypass around the town centre 2. There is a busy supermarket with a large car park on one side of the ring road and the town centre on the other 3. There is a purpose-built pedestrian walkway leading to the pavement on the outer side of the carriageway and an alleyway leading directly into the town centre on the other side 4. There are no pedestrian guardrails either side of the carriageway at what appears to be a primary location used by people for their speed and convenience, to avoid the need to walk further to use the pedestrian crossings ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; 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

Assess national pedestrian-guardrail guidance and alternative measures to encourage safer pedestrian crossing routes at the Christchurch Way location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“to include the Christchurch Way pedestrian desire line crossing location. The study will consider the current national guidance on pedestrian guardrails and whether alternative measures or interventions may be appropriate to encourage safer pedestrian crossing routes at this location.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 September 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

Extend the Stone active-travel and structural-maintenance study area to include the Christchurch Way pedestrian desire-line crossing location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Notwithstanding the above, the County Council has a scheme in this year’s capital programme to consider active travel and structural maintenance at a number of locations in Stone; and, following receipt of the Prevention of Future Deaths Report, the study area has been extended”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 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

Additional pedestrian guardrails cannot be adopted straightforwardly because they may obstruct vehicle visibility or redirect pedestrians into the carriageway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The provision of additional pedestrian guardrail, to encourage pedestrians to use the formal crossing points, has been considered. However, initial observations have identified that the addition of pedestrian guard rail on the southern side of the carriageway may impede visibility for vehicles exiting the private business vehicle access; and the addition of pedestrian guardrail on the northern side of the carriageway may encourage pedestrians to enter the carriageway at either the bus stop or private driveway access that is situated approximately 47 metres away.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 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.1

  1. 1

    Review collision history and assess the highway layout at the Christchurch Way pedestrian crossing location.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 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

Review collision history and assess the highway layout at the Christchurch Way pedestrian crossing location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of the collision history at the location of concern (Christchurch Way between the Supermarket access and the Lichfield Street/High Street junction) has been undertaken. No other personal injury collisions have been recorded by Staffordshire Police at this location since before 1 January 2020. A site visit and an assessment of the highway layout have also been completed.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 September 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

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026