PFD report

Alasdair Neal Penny · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Mar 2015•West 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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
4

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 of bridge railings to prevent easy mounting
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridgesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
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

    Investigate the technical feasibility of increasing the College Lane Bridge parapet height to deter future jumps.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 March 2015.
  2. Action

    Participate in the planned update meeting on potential bridge alterations.

    Stated by Giles YorkStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 March 2015.

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

  1. Position

    WSCC is responsible for managing decisions and delivery concerning potential alterations to the bridge.

    Stated by Giles YorkRedirects 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

Failure of bridge railings to prevent easy mounting

Wider context from the report

“This Bridge has been the site of 2 suicides in 2011 and 2014; I am unaware if there have been any other successful suicides at this location before then, but if so, not in the very recent past. In each of the 2 cases the deceased jumped from the bridge on to the road below, a distance of 10-11 metres. The 2 footpaths that bound the carriageway each have a metal railing and the height of the railing is such that they can be quite easily mounted. There is a series of discrete notices on the mesh infill to the railings, giving details, I understand, of the Samaritans. I cannot, and do not, offer a solution I certainly recognise that merely raising the level of the railing may not prevent the determined person to climb up and jump. But it might well stop the spontaneous jumper. I understand that I do not know whether it is possible/feasible to provide extra/or some other form of protection in order to make it more difficult for the bridge to be used as a suicide site. However, I do believe that the whole situation should be reconsidered in case something can be reasonably implemented to minimise the possibility of a recurrence. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges; Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

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

Investigate the technical feasibility of increasing the College Lane Bridge parapet height to deter future jumps.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While we would caution that it is unlikely that any engineering solution would be 100% effective we will be investigating whether it is technically feasible to increase the height of the current parapet to deter as far as practicable similar events occurring in the future. If an appropriate solution can be determined we intend to undertake the alterations within this financial year, subject to any design and programming constraints. If an appropriate technical solution cannot be realised I will write to you again explaining the reasons why.”

Source location

2015-0106-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 March 2015

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

Participate in the planned update meeting on potential bridge alterations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The potential alterations to the bridge are being managed by WSCC and an update meeting is planned between Peter Lawrence (WSCC), Julie Holden (EGTC) and PS Graeme Prentice (Sussex Police) on the 20th May 2015.”

Source location

2015-0106-Response-by-Sussex-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 17 March 2015

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

WSCC is responsible for managing decisions and delivery concerning potential alterations to the bridge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The raising of the parapets, which was the partners preferred recommendation, was referred to WSCC and was discussed at the County Local Committee meeting in late 2014. WSCC reported that the vegetation could not be cut back and a report was being prepared as to the reasons why.”

Source location

2015-0106-Response-by-Sussex-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 17 March 2015

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.2

  1. 1

    Raise preventative safety measures with partners through the East Grinstead Neighbourhood Joint Action Group.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 March 2015.
  2. 2

    Continue police patrols of the bridge area.

    Stated by Giles YorkStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 March 2015.

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

Raise preventative safety measures with partners through the East Grinstead Neighbourhood Joint Action Group.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will also be raising the issue with other partners through the East Grinstead Neighbourhood Joint Action Group (NJAG) to see if there is any further appropriate preventative work that can be initiated from a community perspective including the potential of additional work with vulnerable young people through our Health Services. Previously the East Grinstead NJAG was responsible for arranging the current Samaritans signs and for organising for the local Street Pastors to make the bridge part of their regular patrols.”

Source location

2015-0106-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 March 2015

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 police patrols of the bridge area.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The NJAG group was able to implement 6 Samaritans signs on the bridge which are still currently in place and the Street Pastors continue to patrol the bridge, as do the local police team.”

Source location

2015-0106-Response-by-Sussex-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 17 March 2015

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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026