PFD report

Garry Arthur Colin Daltry · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Jul 2014•North Wales (East and Central)

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
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.

Concerns raised1

  1. Tripping hazard in the location
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.1

  1. Action

    Carry out a joint boundary-to-boundary inspection of the coastal areas with responsible engineers and Corporate Health and Safety.

    Stated by Denbighshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 July 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Lighting the exposed vicinity is not reasonably practicable because installation and maintenance costs would outweigh long-term public benefit.

    Stated by Denbighshire 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

Tripping hazard in the location

Wider context from the report

“That unless steps are taken to mitigate the tripping hazard in this location, then other people may fall sustaining injuries which could lead to 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

Carry out a joint boundary-to-boundary inspection of the coastal areas with responsible engineers and Corporate Health and Safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Because the overall risk is considered to fall within the broadly acceptable region DCC feels that any measures it puts in place to further reduce the risk must be carefully considered i.e. installing railings in selected areas may cause visitors to believe that where railings are absent no risk exists. We therefore feel that the installation of additional railings has to be assessed during the boundary to boundary inspection identified as one of our proposed actions.”

Source location

2014-0295-Response-by-Denbigshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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

Lighting the exposed vicinity is not reasonably practicable because installation and maintenance costs would outweigh long-term public benefit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In section 5 of the regulation 28 report it is identified that the area was not lit. The County Council does not have a duty to light highways and footpaths but has the discretion to do so. Fitting luminaires in this exposed vicinity is not considered to be reasonably practicable as the installation and maintenance costs would far outweigh any long term benefit to the public.”

Source location

2014-0295-Response-by-Denbigshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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

Remedial works identified through risk assessment will be undertaken only as funding permits because none of the issues presents imminent danger.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Engineers to review the prioritised actions identified in the risk assessment and carry out remedial actions as funding permits. Open timescale as none of the issues identified are considered to pose imminent danger”

Source location

2014-0295-Response-by-Denbigshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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.4

  1. 1

    Assess the coastal-area risk level using the HSE tolerability-of-risk framework.

    Stated by Denbighshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 July 2014.
  2. 2

    Visit the incident area, risk-assess identified issues, and make recommendations to responsible engineers.

    Stated by Denbighshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 July 2014.
  3. 3

    Review prioritised actions identified in the risk assessment.

    Stated by Denbighshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 July 2014.
  4. 4

    Maintain routine safety monitoring of the coastal areas under council control.

    Stated by Denbighshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 July 2014.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The assessed coastal-path fatality risk is broadly acceptable, so additional railings require careful assessment rather than automatic installation.

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

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 the coastal-area risk level using the HSE tolerability-of-risk framework.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The HSE produced a document in 2001 called “Reducing risks, protecting people”, in this publication the HSE describe a “Tolerability of Risk Framework” (ToR) for assessing the level of risk of death. The framework separates the risk level into three regions which are: the unacceptable region, tolerable region and broadly acceptable region. For the risk level to fall within the broadly acceptable region the risk of death needs to be 1:1,000,000 or greater. Using conservative estimates of footfall on the Prestatyn promenade during the past 43 years and the knowledge of the recent tragedy we have assessed the ratio at greater than 1:1,053,500 which places the risk in the broadly acceptable region. Our assumptions for this assessment are attached as Appendix 1.”

Source location

2014-0295-Response-by-Denbigshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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

Visit the incident area, risk-assess identified issues, and make recommendations to responsible engineers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Visit to area of the incident by DCC Corporate Health and Safety. During this visit a number of issues were identified that have been risk assessed with recommendations being made to the responsible engineers. It should be noted that none of the issues relate directly to incident”

Source location

2014-0295-Response-by-Denbigshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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

Review prioritised actions identified in the risk assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Engineers to review the prioritised actions identified in the risk assessment and carry out remedial actions as funding permits. Open timescale as none of the issues identified are considered to pose imminent danger”

Source location

2014-0295-Response-by-Denbigshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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

Maintain routine safety monitoring of the coastal areas under council control.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To help maintain facilities at an acceptable standard DCC carries out routine safety tours of the coastal areas under its control, issues identified during the tours are passed to the relevant section for remedial action to be carried out.”

Source location

2014-0295-Response-by-Denbigshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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 assessed coastal-path fatality risk is broadly acceptable, so additional railings require careful assessment rather than automatic installation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The HSE produced a document in 2001 called “Reducing risks, protecting people”, in this publication the HSE describe a “Tolerability of Risk Framework” (ToR) for assessing the level of risk of death. The framework separates the risk level into three regions which are: the unacceptable region, tolerable region and broadly acceptable region. For the risk level to fall within the broadly acceptable region the risk of death needs to be 1:1,000,000 or greater. Using conservative estimates of footfall on the Prestatyn promenade during the past 43 years and the knowledge of the recent tragedy we have assessed the ratio at greater than 1:1,053,500 which places the risk in the broadly acceptable region. Our assumptions for this assessment are attached as Appendix 1.”

Source location

2014-0295-Response-by-Denbigshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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