PFD report

Sonny James FARRIER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Jul 2024•County Durham and Darlington

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
7

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. Hazard to vehicular traffic on the steep, sharply bending stretch of Butsfield Lane in slippery conditions
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of collision risks on steep, bending roads in slippery conditions
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.3

  1. Action

    Check the road gradient between known points and assess whether updated gradient signage is required.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 2024.
  2. Action

    Investigate potential additional safety features, including signage, and assess their suitability for Busfield Lane.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 2024.
  3. Action

    Provide an additional salt bin.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    No further action was planned because, after reviewing all options, practical improvements to the network were not considered achievable.

    Stated by Durham 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

Hazard to vehicular traffic on the steep, sharply bending stretch of Butsfield Lane in slippery conditions

Wider context from the report

“The Road called Butsfield Lane in Consett (locally known as “Bogle Hole Lane”), approximately 1 km north-east of its junction with Delves Lane, includes a hill of between 19 and 21% gradient, with a bend immediately beyond its lower portion. In slippery conditions, and in the absence of effective mitigation, passage of vehicular traffic along this stretch of Butsfield Lane presents a hazard and risk of death to road users. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of collision risks on steep, bending roads in slippery conditions.

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

Check the road gradient between known points and assess whether updated gradient signage is required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Check accuracy of gradient and if required change the existing sign with the “new” gradient – The gradient was checked between 2 known points 120m apart. It is accepted there are some isolated locations between the 2 points where the gradient exceeds 13% but the average gradient is 13%. No further action required/taken;”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 4 July 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

Investigate potential additional safety features, including signage, and assess their suitability for Busfield Lane.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Signage Following receipt of the council’s fatal accident report and the concerns highlighted in your report we have also investigated other potential safety features we could facilitate to improve safety on Busfield Lane for example the introduction of additional signage. However, having reviewed and considered the advice provided in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 there is not a sign, or combination of signs which would be suitable for this location.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 4 July 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

Provide an additional salt bin.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Consider the provision of an additional salt bin – New additional salt bin provided;”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 4 July 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

No further action was planned because, after reviewing all options, practical improvements to the network were not considered achievable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The council takes its responsibility to ensure the highway network is maintained in a safe and serviceable condition all year round and especially during the winter period. This can be evidenced by the importance it places on its winter service. However, on this particular road, having reviewed all options we don’t consider improvements to the network can be achieved practically and therefore whilst we accept the death of an individual as a result of weather conditions is a very emotive subject we have come to the very difficult conclusion that no further action is required on Busfield Lane.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 4 July 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

After checking the gradient, no further action was considered necessary because the average gradient between two known points was 13%.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Check accuracy of gradient and if required change the existing sign with the “new” gradient – The gradient was checked between 2 known points 120m apart. It is accepted there are some isolated locations between the 2 points where the gradient exceeds 13% but the average gradient is 13%. No further action required/taken;”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 4 July 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

No additional signage was proposed because traffic-sign regulations provided no suitable sign or combination of signs for this location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Signage Following receipt of the council’s fatal accident report and the concerns highlighted in your report we have also investigated other potential safety features we could facilitate to improve safety on Busfield Lane for example the introduction of additional signage. However, having reviewed and considered the advice provided in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 there is not a sign, or combination of signs which would be suitable for this location.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 4 July 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

Busfield Lane was excluded from routine gritting because the existing winter-service policy prioritises strategic roads and resources are limited.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Gritting Routes The Council precautionary salts 45% of our highway network as part of our Priority 1 network, with a further 10% being treated in prolonged severe weather as part of our Priority 2 network. This is much higher than many other similar Highway Authorities and shows the Council’s commitment to provide the best winter maintenance service we can in line with available resources.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 4 July 2024

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

    Replace the damaged black-and-white marker post.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 2024.
  2. 2

    Repair the existing weight-restriction sign.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 2024.
  3. 3

    Repair the void off the carriageway near the accident location.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 2024.
  4. 4

    Assess the bridge parapet for adequate containment and confirm that the assessment remains current.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 July 2024.

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

  1. 1

    The existing bridge parapet was considered adequate for containment, so no further action regarding the bridge fencing was required.

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

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

Replace the damaged black-and-white marker post.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Replace damaged black and white marker post – The post has been replaced;”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 4 July 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

Repair the existing weight-restriction sign.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Repair existing weight restriction sign – Work completed;”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 4 July 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

Repair the void off the carriageway near the accident location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Consider repairing void “off the carriageway” near to the accident location – Work completed; and”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 4 July 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

Assess the bridge parapet for adequate containment and confirm that the assessment remains current.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Determine if the existing timber post and rail fencing surrounding the bridge parapet is sufficient - The bridge parapet (designed with a return) was assessed under IAN 97/07 Parapet Assessments as part of a Principal Bridge Inspection in 2017 and its condition at that time was deemed adequate for containment. As there has been no significant deterioration in the bridge condition these findings remain current. The existing timber post and rail fence is not part of the bridge structure and is in private ownership. No further action required/taken.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 4 July 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 existing bridge parapet was considered adequate for containment, so no further action regarding the bridge fencing was required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Determine if the existing timber post and rail fencing surrounding the bridge parapet is sufficient - The bridge parapet (designed with a return) was assessed under IAN 97/07 Parapet Assessments as part of a Principal Bridge Inspection in 2017 and its condition at that time was deemed adequate for containment. As there has been no significant deterioration in the bridge condition these findings remain current. The existing timber post and rail fence is not part of the bridge structure and is in private ownership. No further action required/taken.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 4 July 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