PFD report

MARTHA ANNE SEAWARD · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Feb 2015•Norfolk

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
9

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 raised2

  1. Failure to implement safety measures for the Lodge Hill bus stop and adjacent A148
  2. Dangerous bus stop and stretch of road at Lodge Hill
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.5

  1. Action

    Implement the proposed Lodge Hill pedestrian-safety package, including guided footpaths, verge lowering, and warning signs.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 February 2015.
  2. Action

    Refresh the A148 carriageway’s “SLOW” markings.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 February 2015.
  3. Action

    Implement Local Safety Scheme improvements, including vegetation clearance, relocated advance signs, and refreshed road markings and give-way lines.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 February 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.7

  1. Position

    Reduced highway-improvement funding requires prioritisation by risk, making a roundabout unlikely in the medium term and not currently justifiable.

    Stated by Norfolk 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

Failure to implement safety measures for the Lodge Hill bus stop and adjacent A148

Wider context from the report

“(1) The bus stop at Lodge Hill is regarded as busy by Norfolk County Council (NCC) with 778 passengers in 2014. There used to be an hourly service from this stop into West Beckham until 2006 when it was stopped due to it being too dangerous for the bus to travel across the A148. There is now a service 1 per day - 3 days per week. The bus stop services a local tourist attraction as well as the nearby village of West Beckham. (2) Concerns have been raised with the NCC on two occasions in the past 2 years (unrelated to this incident) with regard to the dangers of this bus stop/stretch of road. (3) There has been communication between NCC and Norman Lamb MP regarding a feasibility study carried out for safety measures to be introduced in respect of this area. No action has been taken since May 2014. The outcome of the Inquest has been awaited before taking any further action. (4) Matters which have been considered but in respect of which no action has been taken include: 1. Affordable options to improve safety for pedestrians crossing the A148, such as a pedestrian refuge; 2. Improvements to visibility; 3. Bus stop arrangements such as a lay-by 4. Speed limit. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Dangerous bus stop and stretch of road at Lodge Hill

Wider context from the report

“(1) The bus stop at Lodge Hill is regarded as busy by Norfolk County Council (NCC) with 778 passengers in 2014. There used to be an hourly service from this stop into West Beckham until 2006 when it was stopped due to it being too dangerous for the bus to travel across the A148. There is now a service 1 per day - 3 days per week. The bus stop services a local tourist attraction as well as the nearby village of West Beckham. (2) Concerns have been raised with the NCC on two occasions in the past 2 years (unrelated to this incident) with regard to the dangers of this bus stop/stretch of road. (3) There has been communication between NCC and Norman Lamb MP regarding a feasibility study carried out for safety measures to be introduced in respect of this area. No action has been taken since May 2014. The outcome of the Inquest has been awaited before taking any further action. (4) Matters which have been considered but in respect of which no action has been taken include: 1. Affordable options to improve safety for pedestrians crossing the A148, such as a pedestrian refuge; 2. Improvements to visibility; 3. Bus stop arrangements such as a lay-by 4. Speed limit. ”

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

Implement the proposed Lodge Hill pedestrian-safety package, including guided footpaths, verge lowering, and warning signs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is proposed to implement an improvement as soon as possible within the financial year 2015/16 comprising:”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 6 · response
Published 2 February 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

Refresh the A148 carriageway’s “SLOW” markings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since May 2014, the “SLOW” markings on the carriageway have been refreshed. It is regrettable that the timespan has lengthened linked to the delay in holding the inquest.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 2 February 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

Implement Local Safety Scheme improvements, including vegetation clearance, relocated advance signs, and refreshed road markings and give-way lines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Local Safety Scheme improvements were implemented in October 2009:”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 February 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

Implement a localised road-safety campaign promoting safe crossing practices for bus users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“□ We will implement a localised road safety campaign to raise awareness of safety issues for bus users, in particular regarding crossing the road. We provide specialist education from road safety experts in both primary and secondary schools to promote awareness of the risks in crossing roads, and measures to stay safe. We continually monitor and evaluate this programme to reflect best practice and latest research to provide the best possible opportunity for Road Safety education.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 February 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

Recommend relocating the Lodge Hill bus stop to reduce pedestrian crossings of the A148.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Currently buses stop at Lodge Hill to allow passengers to alight before turning right onto the A148. If the bus stop were to be moved from Lodge Hill onto the A148 this would prevent passengers having to cross the A148 road should they wish to continue their journey into West Beckham.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 February 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

Reduced highway-improvement funding requires prioritisation by risk, making a roundabout unlikely in the medium term and not currently justifiable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The extent to which we can deliver improvements is governed by available funding. Following government funding reductions in 2010/11, we do not receive enough funding to maintain the highway network to current standards. Although we prioritise funding toward maintenance work, we still have a £72.5m backlog of such work.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 2 February 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

A Vehicle Activated Sign was not progressed because the relevant parish councils would need to submit a bid and provide funding.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The possibility of a Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS) to highlight the crossroads to drivers was discussed and the possibility of providing a VAS through our “Parish Partnership” initiative (which delivers low cost highway improvements across Norfolk, jointly funded with parish / town councils) was discussed. This would have required a bid and funding from the relevant parish councils, and was not progressed.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 2 February 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

The accident evidence does not indicate a significant safety problem at Lodge Hill or across Norfolk's rural bus stops.

Verbatim wording from the response

“□ A review has been conducted of accident patterns near bus stops on the A road network. The A road network within the county spans 480 miles. Our review has shown that in the last 10 years, 83 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured in collisions which occurred on the rural 50mph+ network in Norfolk. This accounts for 2.3% of the killed and serious injury accidents in the county. Of these, 20 occurred within 100m of a bus stop; however, this does not indicate whether the bus stop was implicated in the cause of the accident or not. With over 2,000 rural bus stops in Norfolk, only 4 have more than 1 pedestrian collision within 100m over the past 10 years. This does not suggest a significant safety problem at any particular site or across Norfolk as a whole.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 February 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

The existing evidence-based casualty-reduction process does not normally warrant a crossing scheme or Local Safety Scheme at this junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our Road Safety Team monitors injury accidents to identify accident ‘cluster sites’. For rural locations like Lodge Hill, this means five injury accidents within 50m over the past three years. This would trigger investigations which may result in a ‘Local Safety Scheme’. Our evidence-based approach to casualty reduction helps target investment at the most hazardous locations first. The accident record at this junction would not normally trigger the implementation of either a road crossing scheme or Local Safety Scheme, even taking account of this tragic fatality.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 2 February 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

A pedestrian refuge and lay-by were discounted because their required locations would be impracticable and could create unacceptable safety risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. A “D-shaped” pedestrian refuge (with limited main road widening to accommodate it) was considered and discounted because a) the need to accommodate vehicular turning movements mean it would be placed too far from the junction to be practicable and b) the risk of vehicles colliding with the refuge on a high-speed road would create an unacceptable risk for pedestrians and drivers, and is not recommended by the applicable design standards. The recommended proposal to improve safety for pedestrians is summarised in the final section of this response.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 2 February 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

A lower speed limit is not considered justified under the Speed Management Strategy because the road lacks frontage development and driver compliance is good.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. In line with our agreed Speed Management Strategy, the lack of frontage development on the A148 makes it difficult to justify a lower speed limit, given that limits should appear self-evident based on the characteristics of the road. Speed readings at this site demonstrate a good level of driver compliance.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 2 February 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

The independent bus operator is responsible for bus routes, service frequency and stop locations, and the council cannot require changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The bus service in this area is operated by Sanders Limited, a bus operating company, who are independent from the County Council. Sanders have operated the routes in this area for over 10 years. Bus routes, frequency of routes and locations of bus stops are the responsibility of the bus operating company. Bus operating companies are free to decide where and when to stop their buses along the route.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 February 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.4

  1. 1

    Develop an internal procedure to risk-assess applications for formal bus stops, alongside existing high-speed-road design guidance.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 February 2015.
  2. 2

    Share the Coroner’s report with the bus operator.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 February 2015.
  3. 3

    Engage bus operators to discuss and standardise bus-stop determination practices.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 February 2015.
  4. 4

    Review accident patterns near bus stops across the rural A-road network.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 February 2015.

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

  1. 1

    The Lodge Hill bus stop is not considered busy because recorded usage is substantially lower than the figure cited in the concern.

    Stated by Norfolk 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

Develop an internal procedure to risk-assess applications for formal bus stops, alongside existing high-speed-road design guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Nevertheless, we have now developed an internal procedure to risk assess each new application for a formal bus stop to manage down risk as far as practicable, along with existing guidance for designers regarding provision of formalised bus stops on high speed (50mph+) A class roads.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 February 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

Share the Coroner’s report with the bus operator.

Verbatim wording from the response

“□ We have shared the Coroner's Prevent Future Death’s report with Sanders, the bus operating company responsible for the bus service. Sanders have the power to take action and implement changes to the location of the bus stops in order to prevent passengers having to cross the A148. A copy of Norfolk County Council's correspondence to Sanders is attached to this response.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 February 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

Engage bus operators to discuss and standardise bus-stop determination practices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Legislation allows bus operators to establish stopping points at any location they choose. Where a commercial service exists, operators are not required to consult Norfolk County Council or involve the County Council in their decision making. However, we will seek to engage with operators to discuss current practices for bus stop determination with a view to standardise the approach across all operators.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 February 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

Review accident patterns near bus stops across the rural A-road network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“□ A review has been conducted of accident patterns near bus stops on the A road network. The A road network within the county spans 480 miles. Our review has shown that in the last 10 years, 83 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured in collisions which occurred on the rural 50mph+ network in Norfolk. This accounts for 2.3% of the killed and serious injury accidents in the county. Of these, 20 occurred within 100m of a bus stop; however, this does not indicate whether the bus stop was implicated in the cause of the accident or not. With over 2,000 rural bus stops in Norfolk, only 4 have more than 1 pedestrian collision within 100m over the past 10 years. This does not suggest a significant safety problem at any particular site or across Norfolk as a whole.”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 February 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

The Lodge Hill bus stop is not considered busy because recorded usage is substantially lower than the figure cited in the concern.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Norfolk County Council is able to access data on bus usage via the electronic ticket machines. The figures quoted in your report of 778 passengers using the bus stop at Lodge Hill do not match the data held by Norfolk County Council. Our data shows that 778 passengers use buses on the route. This is different to the number of bus passengers who use the bus stop. The data on the Lodge Hill bus stop shows the number of passengers using this stop to be: □ 16 in the week beginning 17 August 2014 □ 8 in the week beginning 25 January 2014”

Source location

2015-0033-Response-by-Norfolk-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 February 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026