PFD report

Mr David WELLINGTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Apr 2024•Black Country

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
5

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 raised5

  1. Failure to ensure emergency-service access to the service road
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency access arrangements for responders
  2. Lack of signs warning road users of pedestrians
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  3. Lack of a designated and separated pedestrian route to the flats
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside roadsPart 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

    Alter trade-waste collections so crews access the rear of shops, collect bins there, and leave the service road clear.

    Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 May 2024.
  2. Action

    Develop and assess an alternative pedestrian-safety scheme involving a diverted entrance, crossing, and footway, including highway-engineer review and landowner negotiations.

    Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 May 2024.
  3. Action

    Notify shop and maisonette lessees that skips are prohibited on the service road and require written council consent for any placement.

    Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 May 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.7

  1. Position

    There is no evidence that excessive speed caused the accident or that maximum-speed signs would reduce the risk of future deaths.

    Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 ensure emergency-service access to the service road

Wider context from the report

“5. The manual operation of the barrier coupled with the obstructions in the service road itself present a risk to the ability of emergency services (Fire & Ambulance) to access the service road and operate effectively within the service road area if needed. The police investigation noted that the skip and bins had to be moved out of the way on the day of the incident involving Mr Wellington to make room for the emergency services. In my view this presents a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency access arrangements for responders.

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 signs warning road users of pedestrians

Wider context from the report

“6. There appear to be no signs alerting anyone using the access road to the potential presence of pedestrians within the service road area and no speed limit for vehicles using the service road. In my view this presents a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage.

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 a designated and separated pedestrian route to the flats

Wider context from the report

“1. I heard evidence at inquest that the service road provides access to the shops that face onto Leamore Lane for delivery purposes. The service road opening is off Bloxwich Road and has a barrier which is operated manually, being opened for deliveries normally by the shop keepers. I heard evidence that the service road is a single carriageway which is used by both vehicles AND pedestrians. As you enter the road, the road is lined with metal fencing on the left side of the road which has openings onto two pathways for access to the flats on Comwall Close (incorrectly referred to as Camwell Close in the Police report). 2. There is no designated pathway for pedestrians when using the service road for the purpose of accessing the nearby flats. Designated pedestrian access from Leamore Lane and Bloxwich Road via a pathway still requires a pedestrian to cross the service road itself. Pedestrian access is not sited on the same side as the flats. In my view this presents a risk of future deaths. 3. There are no road markings designating a pedestrian route nor any clear and designated pathway separating a pedestrian route to the flats from the service road itself. In my view this presents a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside roads; Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

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 a speed limit for vehicles using the service road

Wider context from the report

“6. There appear to be no signs alerting anyone using the access road to the potential presence of pedestrians within the service road area and no speed limit for vehicles using the service road. In my view this presents a risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations; Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads.

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 keep the service road clear of obstructions

Wider context from the report

“4. On the day of the collision, there were two large council bins intruding into the carriageway positioned just before the opening of the pathway. There were also two vehicles parked stationary at the side of the service road and a blue skip in the roadway. It was obvious from the evidence that the service road was being used for purposes other than which it was designed and that there were a number of obstructions present in the service road presenting a risk to pedestrians using the service road to access the flats and therefore reducing their visibility to vehicles using the service road. In my view this presents a risk of future deaths. ”

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

Alter trade-waste collections so crews access the rear of shops, collect bins there, and leave the service road clear.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Waste bins In the absence of anywhere, other than the service road, more suitable to leave the trade waste bins for collection, the council is in the process of altering the procedure for collecting trade waste from the rear of the shops. The proposal is in the future the crew of the waste collection lorry will be provided with a key to the barrier across the service road. The waste collection lorry will reverse along the service road to the rear of the shops. Any trade waste bins will be collected from the rear of the shops. The waste collection lorry will then drive forwards along the service road towards Bloxwich Road, locking the barrier behind it. There will thus be no need for trade waste bins to be left on the carriageway of the service road.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 8 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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

Develop and assess an alternative pedestrian-safety scheme involving a diverted entrance, crossing, and footway, including highway-engineer review and landowner negotiations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A senior council officer, in consultation with other officers, is considering a scheme for stopping up a pedestrian entrance from the service road to the ████████ estate, the provision of a crossing diagonally across the service road behind the barrier, and a footway along the Watmos land beside the service road leading to Bloxwich Road. We enclose a rough sketch of this scheme. This would require consideration by the highway engineers, and negotiation with ████████, which owns the land along which the proposed footway would run. The scheme also assumes that any long lessee of a flat in the ████████ estate would be agreeable to a change in the pedestrian rights of access to that flat from the service road.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 9 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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

Notify shop and maisonette lessees that skips are prohibited on the service road and require written council consent for any placement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Skips As can be seen from the opening paragraphs of this response the council owns the service road but the occupiers of adjoining premises have private rights of way along it. Those rights of way allow for people to pass and re-pass along the service road. They do not give anyone the right to place a skip on the service road. A wrongly placed skip could obstruct the rights of way of others along the service road. The council does, however, recognise that there are occasions when skips do need to be placed near buildings. The council has thus written to all of the lessees of the shops and the maisonettes facing Leamore Lane to remind them that they are not permitted to place skips on the service road.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 8 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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 consideration of removing the barrier and determine that removal would exacerbate access obstruction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the council recognises that the presence of the barrier poses an obstruction to the private rights of way along the service road, that obstruction was requested by those entitled to have vehicular access to their premises along the service road. The reality is that the barrier poses less of an obstruction to vehicular access than that caused by the unauthorised parking of vehicles behind the shops. The council has carried out the exercise of considering whether the concerns set out in the Prevention of Future Deaths Report could be met by the removal of the barrier. The historical experience of the service road being blocked by unauthorised vehicles has led the council to conclude that the problem of obstruction of access would be exacerbated, rather than lessened, by the removal of the barrier.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 4 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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

Consider safely installing a designated pedestrian pathway while assessing required carriageway and footway widths and access implications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The council has considered the possibility that a designated pathway could be installed with the consent of all those with rights of access along the service road. It has thus considered how such a pathway could be safely installed.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 5 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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

There is no evidence that excessive speed caused the accident or that maximum-speed signs would reduce the risk of future deaths.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The council notes that the most unfortunate accident which led to the death of Mr Wellington was caused by a van reversing along the service road behind the shops. The council does not have any evidence of the speed at which the van was being reversed, so it has assumed that it was being driven at a very low speed. It has also assumed that it was being driven at a speed below any speed limit which could reasonably have been imposed if the council had the power to impose a speed limit. In the absence of any evidence of vehicles being driven along the service road at excessive speed, or of speed having played any part in the accident which led to the most unfortunate death of Mr Wellington, the council does not have any material which would indicate that signs indicating a maximum speed would reduce the risk of future deaths.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 5 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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 proposed alternative pedestrian scheme cannot be implemented without agreement from the neighbouring landowner and affected leaseholders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An alternative proposal The council takes very seriously the fact that an accident occurred on its land. That was made more serious by the fact that this was a fatal accident. It regards the Prevention of Future Deaths Report as a request to take whatever action might be possible to deal with the concerns raised in that report. The council has thus considered what scheme might be implemented which takes account of all of the concerns set out in the report. Those considerations have included the taking of steps which are beyond the present powers of the council and would require the express consent of other parties.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 9 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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 unilaterally designate part of the service road as a pedestrian pathway because all access-rights holders must consent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Designated pathway As has been set out above all those persons who have rights of way along the service road are entitled to exercise those rights across the full width of the service road. It would be the duty of anyone using the service road to do so in a way which did not interfere with the use of it by anyone else. The council is thus not entitled unilaterally to designate parts of the service road as a pathway, leaving the rest of the service road for vehicular use.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 5 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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 legally impose an enforceable speed limit because the service road is not a highway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Speed limit As the service road is not a highway the council cannot impose a legally enforceable speed limit along the service road.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 4 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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 service road is too narrow to provide both a sufficiently wide carriageway and a safe 1.5-metre footway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The service road at the point where the barrier is installed is 4.85m wide. A modest reduction in the width of the service road at this point would not be sufficient to accommodate a footway approaching 1.5m in width. Whilst it would be possible to lay out a separate footway along one side of the service road, neither the footway nor the remaining carriageway would be sufficiently wide to allow proper use of either.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 6 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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

Retaining the barrier is considered preferable because removing it would worsen obstruction caused by unauthorised vehicle parking.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the council recognises that the presence of the barrier poses an obstruction to the private rights of way along the service road, that obstruction was requested by those entitled to have vehicular access to their premises along the service road. The reality is that the barrier poses less of an obstruction to vehicular access than that caused by the unauthorised parking of vehicles behind the shops. The council has carried out the exercise of considering whether the concerns set out in the Prevention of Future Deaths Report could be met by the removal of the barrier. The historical experience of the service road being blocked by unauthorised vehicles has led the council to conclude that the problem of obstruction of access would be exacerbated, rather than lessened, by the removal of the barrier.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 4 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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

Marking a designated footway may not improve pedestrian safety and could increase risk by creating false reassurance while reversing vehicles remain hazardous.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Road markings providing a designated footway There was a time when shared spaces were popular. These were spaces which were shared by both vehicles and pedestrians. The DfT stopped promoting shared spaces in 2018. This may have been because of the risks to partially sighted road users. Any attempts to mark out parts of the service road for use by vehicles and parts for use by pedestrians would be met with the practical problem that the service road is not wide enough to accommodate both a carriageway for vehicles and a footway for pedestrians. It is thus questionable whether marking out a designated footway on the service road would in fact increase the safety of a pedestrian. There is the risk that a marked out footway would give the impression to a pedestrian that he or she would be safe to use that footway. That might be leading the pedestrian into a false sense of security.”

Source location

2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Page 7 · response
Published 9 May 2024

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