PFD report

David Allan Cox · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Nov 2013•Derby and Derbyshire

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
13

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 raised3

  1. Blind bends along the bridleway
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safelyPart of recurring concern: Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends
  2. Extremely narrow and acute bridleway track
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe road width for vehicle passage
  3. Absence of a barrier between the bridleway and the river
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls preventing falls from water-adjacent public routes
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.7

  1. Action

    Investigate external funding streams and liaise with Derbyshire County Council about incorporating the proposed safety works into its programme.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 November 2013.
  2. Action

    Develop a detailed works specification by appointing replacement specialist engineering expertise and coordinating required safety, gabion, and design input.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 November 2013.
  3. Action

    Notify relevant organisations and residents about identified safety issues and seek their input and required consents for proposed works.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 November 2013.

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

Blind bends along the bridleway

Wider context from the report

“The track at the point of the bend where the vehicles left the track on 24th January 2013 being extremely narrow and acute, leaving no margin for error and creating a risk of other vehicles leaving the track and sliding down the river bank into the river below due to the absence of any barrier. There is no barrier or wall along the length of the bridleway between the track and the river and I had confirmed in evidence that there are in total three blind bends along the length of the bridleway. The presence of two further blind bends along the same track also causes me concern. The concern is that circumstances creating a risk of further deaths will occur or will continue to exist in the future relating to the risk of vehicles leaving the narrow bridleway at the blind bends and rolling into the river due to the track being extremely narrow and the absence of any barrier between the bridleway and the river below. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely; Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends.

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

Extremely narrow and acute bridleway track

Wider context from the report

“The track at the point of the bend where the vehicles left the track on 24th January 2013 being extremely narrow and acute, leaving no margin for error and creating a risk of other vehicles leaving the track and sliding down the river bank into the river below due to the absence of any barrier. There is no barrier or wall along the length of the bridleway between the track and the river and I had confirmed in evidence that there are in total three blind bends along the length of the bridleway. The presence of two further blind bends along the same track also causes me concern. The concern is that circumstances creating a risk of further deaths will occur or will continue to exist in the future relating to the risk of vehicles leaving the narrow bridleway at the blind bends and rolling into the river due to the track being extremely narrow and the absence of any barrier between the bridleway and the river below. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe road width for vehicle passage.

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

Absence of a barrier between the bridleway and the river

Wider context from the report

“The track at the point of the bend where the vehicles left the track on 24th January 2013 being extremely narrow and acute, leaving no margin for error and creating a risk of other vehicles leaving the track and sliding down the river bank into the river below due to the absence of any barrier. There is no barrier or wall along the length of the bridleway between the track and the river and I had confirmed in evidence that there are in total three blind bends along the length of the bridleway. The presence of two further blind bends along the same track also causes me concern. The concern is that circumstances creating a risk of further deaths will occur or will continue to exist in the future relating to the risk of vehicles leaving the narrow bridleway at the blind bends and rolling into the river due to the track being extremely narrow and the absence of any barrier between the bridleway and the river below. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls preventing falls from water-adjacent public routes.

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 external funding streams and liaise with Derbyshire County Council about incorporating the proposed safety works into its programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“l. Funding”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 5 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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 a detailed works specification by appointing replacement specialist engineering expertise and coordinating required safety, gabion, and design input.

Verbatim wording from the response

“h. Specification for Works”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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 relevant organisations and residents about identified safety issues and seek their input and required consents for proposed works.

Verbatim wording from the response

“e. The Authority made initial written contact with key organisations, including the Partners, on 3 December 2013 to inform them of the issues identified during the inquest, to put them on notice of the impending PFD Report and your emphasis of the need for their input into the consideration and approval of any action taken by the Authority. The key organisations were notified before receipt of the PFD Report and the expert reports (outlined below) to facilitate the implementation of any identified actions as soon as possible. The organisations contacted in early December are as follows:”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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

Commission and complete a survey assessing river-bank stability, hydrological issues, track widening, and potential safety engineering measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The River Wye Bank Stabilisation Works – Site Assessment Report (the “Survey Report”) was funded and commissioned by the Authority prior to the inquest. The report, which addresses bank stability and wider hydrological issues along the entire length of the track, was prepared by Silkstone Environmental Ltd and SM Foster Associates Ltd further to their respective bank stability and hydrological assessments. A copy is enclosed for your information. Although Silkstone carried out their initial on-site”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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

Commission technical tender documents and invite at least three appropriately qualified contractors to bid for the proposed works.

Verbatim wording from the response

“j. Tendering Process”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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

Install permanent public-safety signage at both ends of the track.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. The Authority installed further permanent signage at both ends of the track in December 2013. The signage states “Public Safety Notice. Narrow track. Blind bends. Cycle with care. Expect to meet authorised vehicles”. A photograph of this signage is attached.”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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 pursuing required consents from partners during specification development and tendering.

Verbatim wording from the response

“g. The Survey Report was forwarded to the residents and the organisations listed above within paragraph ‘e’ on 16 and 17 January for comment by no later 14 February 2014. You will recall from the inquest that the Authority consulted with DCC and Natural England, and required consent from the Environment Agency and Network Rail, in respect of previous minor bank repair works carried out in April 2013. This previous process took 2 months and did not entail the extent of preparatory work or technical input required in respect of the works proposed within the Survey Report. In light of the much larger scale of the proposed works the Authority has requested consent from all of the Partners.”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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.6

  1. 1

    Provide residents with winter parking permits and renew them annually.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 November 2013.
  2. 2

    Provide and initially fill two grit bins along the track, with capped refill-cost contributions.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 November 2013.
  3. 3

    Invite residents to a meeting with the Authority’s Property Development Officer to discuss the proposed works.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 November 2013.
  4. 4

    Forward the draft specification to partners, organisations, and residents for comment and incorporate relevant specialist input into the final draft.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 November 2013.
  5. 5

    Continue monthly track inspections, maintain the inspection schedule, and carry out resulting pothole repairs.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 November 2013.
  6. 6

    Coordinate with the fishing club to avoid duplicated funding and identify mutually beneficial bank-safety solutions.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 November 2013.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    The proposed safety works cannot proceed fully until necessary consents are obtained from the relevant partner organisations.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. 2

    The Authority cannot fund the proposed safety works from available resources and must obtain external funding before awarding a works contract.

    Stated by Peak District National Park AuthorityUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Provide residents with winter parking permits and renew them annually.

Verbatim wording from the response

“c. The Authority provided the residents on 20 December 2013 with 2 parking permits per household to enable them to park free of charge at the Wye Dale Car park at the entrance to the track during winter months should they wish to do so. Further permits are available on request and the permits will be renewed annually.”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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

Provide and initially fill two grit bins along the track, with capped refill-cost contributions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b. Notwithstanding that the Authority has no policy to grit its bridleways or roads, save for inside the Monsal trail tunnels, the Authority has provided (and initially filled) two grit bins along the track. These are located north of the first viaduct on the track (marked in the approximate position ‘A’ on Plan 1 attached) and south of the second viaduct (marked in the approximate position ‘B’ on Plan 1 attached) respectively. The grit bins and initial grit were supplied by the Authority on week commencing 2 December 2013 on the basis that the residents of Blackwell Mill Cottages will apply the grit and subsequently re-fill the bins with the Authority providing a 25% contribution to the cost of such refills (with a cap of £100 per year). We understand that the residents have also arranged for a grit bin to be located at the residents’ car park.”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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

Invite residents to a meeting with the Authority’s Property Development Officer to discuss the proposed works.

Verbatim wording from the response

“i. Communication with Residents”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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

Forward the draft specification to partners, organisations, and residents for comment and incorporate relevant specialist input into the final draft.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Authority will forward a copy of the draft Specification to the Partners and organisations listed above together with the residents upon receipt for further comments and input. All relevant input will be referred to the instructed specialists for incorporation (if necessary) into a final draft of the Specification.”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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 monthly track inspections, maintain the inspection schedule, and carry out resulting pothole repairs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“d. The Authority has continued its monthly inspections of the track. The Authority has continued to keep and update a maintenance and inspection schedule of such inspections which have resulted in further pot hole repair works carried out on 27 September and 14 November 2013.”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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

Coordinate with the fishing club to avoid duplicated funding and identify mutually beneficial bank-safety solutions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“m. Liaison with other Organisations”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 5 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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 safety works cannot proceed fully until necessary consents are obtained from the relevant partner organisations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“k. Consent and Liaison with the Partners”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 5 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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 Authority cannot fund the proposed safety works from available resources and must obtain external funding before awarding a works contract.

Verbatim wording from the response

“l. Funding”

Source location

2013-0355-Response
Page 5 · response
Published 15 November 2013

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