PFD report

Jennifer Ann DYER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Jun 2022•East Sussex

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
3

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 raised1

  1. Failure to appropriately categorise pothole risks
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable highway inspection and asset-recording processesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable highway-defect investigation and prioritisation
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

    Introduce an enhanced risk-based inspection process allowing defect categories and response times to reflect location, usage and assessed risk.

    Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2022.
  2. Action

    Continue reviewing the effectiveness of the enhanced risk-based approach, including how it would have affected the incident.

    Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 September 2022.

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

  1. Position

    The enhanced risk-based inspection process makes a specific review of pothole categories unnecessary.

    Stated by East Sussex County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 appropriately categorise pothole risks

Wider context from the report

“Under the East Sussex Highway Asset Inspection Manual, this pothole fell within the definition of Cat 3 - LOW for risk and remedial works. The definition is “Greater than 40mm and less than 59mm deep and at least 300mm in all directions”. Clearly, this pothole was the proximate cause of the death of a young woman, and the categorisation of potholes in East Sussex requires significant review, to prevent future avoidable deaths within the County. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable highway inspection and asset-recording processes; Unreliable highway-defect investigation and prioritisation.

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

Introduce an enhanced risk-based inspection process allowing defect categories and response times to reflect location, usage and assessed risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In May 2021 a revised Highway Inspection Manual introduced an enhanced risk assessment process where the highway inspector can consider other factors, such as the location of a defect and usage, as well as the defect category in determining whether a response is required or a different response time required. This means that, following the risk assessment, they are able to change the category of a defect such as changing a non-intervention defect to an intervention defect or reduce or increase the category response time if deemed appropriate. For example, if a category 3 pothole is located on the part of the carriageway cyclists are likely to use such as the nearside edge, this could be increased to a category 2 or 1 depending on risk assessment.”

Source location

Response from East Sussex County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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 reviewing the effectiveness of the enhanced risk-based approach, including how it would have affected the incident.

Verbatim wording from the response

“- Continue to review the effectiveness of the implemented enhanced risk based approach and in particular review how it would have affected this case”

Source location

Response from East Sussex County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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 enhanced risk-based inspection process makes a specific review of pothole categories unnecessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“risk based approach to its safety inspection regimes which allows for a more flexible approach to determining risk for all road users and defect response times. This enables the inspector to change the categorisation of a pothole to include potholes for repair that do not meet the lowest category if required or to change the category of a pothole to a medium or high risk following an onsite risk assessment that now also considers location and road usage in addition to size and depth.”

Source location

Response from East Sussex County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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

    Continue researching and considering cycleway hierarchy and maintenance improvements, including costing and, if required, trialling proposed additions.

    Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 September 2022.

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 researching and considering cycleway hierarchy and maintenance improvements, including costing and, if required, trialling proposed additions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, following changes to the Highway Code introduced earlier this year, the Council have further researched best practice around cycling hierarchy, defect management and prioritisation of cycleway maintenance and road repairs. The Council are currently considering a number of potential actions that could be developed and costed to determine what additions or improvements can be incorporated to the current process. These includes:”

Source location

Response from East Sussex County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 September 2022

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