PFD report

Lesley Powell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Mar 2021•Brighton and Hove

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
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 raised1

  1. Lack of a safe crossing point on the A2100 Battle Hill
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
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

    Complete a preliminary design for a light-controlled crossing and a direct, level pedestrian route across the filling-station forecourt.

    Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
  2. Action

    Progress the crossing scheme through statutory and local-stakeholder consultation, then toward detailed design subject to the consultation outcome.

    Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
  3. Action

    Complete a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit of the preliminary crossing and forecourt-route design.

    Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 August 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Pedestrian safety within the filling-station forecourt requires cooperation and legal agreements with its private owner and operators.

    Stated by East Sussex County CouncilRedirects 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

Lack of a safe crossing point on the A2100 Battle Hill

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is no safe crossing point on the A2100 Battle Hill, Battle, East Sussex in the vicinity of the Esso/Tesco Express Garage and shop ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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

Complete a preliminary design for a light-controlled crossing and a direct, level pedestrian route across the filling-station forecourt.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2020, further discussions and meetings were carried out with Esso and Tesco on alternative options for a pedestrian route across the filling station forecourt and these have resulted in a more direct and level route being identified from the edge of the proposed crossing on the A2100 to the Tesco Express entrance. A preliminary design has now been completed for both the pedestrian crossing and the forecourt pedestrian route. This design has been subject to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and the County Council has allocated further funding in the 2021/22 Capital Programme of Local Transport Improvements to progress the scheme through statutory/local stakeholder consultation, and subject to the outcome of this process, progress to detailed design and possible implementation in a future year’s capital programme.”

Source location

2021-0282-Response-from-East-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Page 6 · response
Published 26 August 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

Progress the crossing scheme through statutory and local-stakeholder consultation, then toward detailed design subject to the consultation outcome.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2020, further discussions and meetings were carried out with Esso and Tesco on alternative options for a pedestrian route across the filling station forecourt and these have resulted in a more direct and level route being identified from the edge of the proposed crossing on the A2100 to the Tesco Express entrance. A preliminary design has now been completed for both the pedestrian crossing and the forecourt pedestrian route. This design has been subject to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and the County Council has allocated further funding in the 2021/22 Capital Programme of Local Transport Improvements to progress the scheme through statutory/local stakeholder consultation, and subject to the outcome of this process, progress to detailed design and possible implementation in a future year’s capital programme.”

Source location

2021-0282-Response-from-East-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Page 6 · response
Published 26 August 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

Complete a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit of the preliminary crossing and forecourt-route design.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2020, further discussions and meetings were carried out with Esso and Tesco on alternative options for a pedestrian route across the filling station forecourt and these have resulted in a more direct and level route being identified from the edge of the proposed crossing on the A2100 to the Tesco Express entrance. A preliminary design has now been completed for both the pedestrian crossing and the forecourt pedestrian route. This design has been subject to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and the County Council has allocated further funding in the 2021/22 Capital Programme of Local Transport Improvements to progress the scheme through statutory/local stakeholder consultation, and subject to the outcome of this process, progress to detailed design and possible implementation in a future year’s capital programme.”

Source location

2021-0282-Response-from-East-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Page 6 · response
Published 26 August 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

Complete a feasibility study of pedestrian-crossing options and wider Battle Hill safety measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, following a serious pedestrian-related crash on Battle Hill, a petition was presented to the County Council on 15 May 2018. The petition was considered by the then Lead Member for Transport and Environment at their decision making meeting on 16 July 2018, where it was resolved that, after liaising with Sussex Police, the County Council would commission their term contractor ‘East Sussex Highways’ to conduct a feasibility study to determine whether some form of pedestrian crossing facility could be introduced at this location and potentially funded through a future capital programme for local transport improvements.”

Source location

2021-0282-Response-from-East-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Page 5 · response
Published 26 August 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

Pedestrian safety within the filling-station forecourt requires cooperation and legal agreements with its private owner and operators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst limited informal internal footways and pedestrian markings were already provided within the filling station forecourt area, these were located some distance from what the desire line of pedestrians using the proposed crossing facility on the A2100. This also presented difficulties to pedestrians of limited, or restricted mobility and specifically those using wheelchairs/mobility scooters, due to the gradients on the wider cartilage of the forecourt. The forecourt is privately owned and not under the control of the Highway Authority (East Sussex County Council). The County Council was concerned that, in addressing the issue of safe passage across the A2100 through the introduction of a formal controlled crossing facility, pedestrians could be placed in danger through uncontrolled movement across a busy forecourt on which drivers are not focused on pedestrian movement.”

Source location

2021-0282-Response-from-East-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Page 6 · response
Published 26 August 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 location did not meet the established crash-frequency or severity criteria requiring an annual Road Safety Team review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The area identified by the Coroner is within an approximate 100-metre radius of the Tesco Express/Esso filling Station on Battle Hill and the period cited by the Coroner of August 2016 to December 2019 covers a 41-month period. This area did not fall inside our parameters for the identification of a crash site because four or more crashes did not occur within a 25-metre radius within the relevant three year period, which was between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2020.”

Source location

2021-0282-Response-from-East-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 26 August 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 Council cannot confirm the crossing works or completion timeframe because funding is limited and capital expenditure follows an approved process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A potential pedestrian crossing scheme is currently being developed in 2021/22 through the County Council’s Capital Programme of Local Transport Improvements. Whilst we are unable to confirm precisely the actions that will be taken at this location (or a timeframe for any works to be completed) due to the limited availability of funding and our approved process for agreeing capital expenditure, we consider that the actions outlined above are appropriate and proportionate to the issues raised and have due regard to the priority this site has, in terms of all other identified and prioritised commitments.”

Source location

2021-0282-Response-from-East-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Page 6 · response
Published 26 August 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

Crash analysis did not identify a clear causal factor or consistent manoeuvre that could be addressed solely through an engineered intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The crash analysis did not indicate that there is any clear causation factor or consistent manoeuvre involved in the crashes occurring at this location that could be solely addressed by an engineered intervention.”

Source location

2021-0282-Response-from-East-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Page 5 · response
Published 26 August 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