PFD report

Dylan Arwel Rattray · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Aug 2014•North West Wales

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
5

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 raised2

  1. Failure to follow written mountain rescue advice on reducing risks of death and serious injury
  2. Failure to prevent walkers accessing misleading paths at the Summit of Snowdon
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable guidance and closure controls for unsafe pedestrian paths
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

    Install directional pillars at agreed Snowdon locations to reduce navigational errors.

    Stated by Snowdonia National Park AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 August 2014.
  2. Action

    Undertake landscaping on the summit’s south-east face to reduce path braiding and erosion scars.

    Stated by Snowdonia National Park AuthorityStatus unclearThe respondent did not make the status of this action clear when they made their response on 12 August 2014.
  3. Action

    Discuss the practicality of constructing a low-level wall around the summit area beneath the trig point.

    Stated by Snowdonia National Park AuthorityStatus unclearThe respondent did not make the status of this action clear when they made their response on 12 August 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Existing visitor-safety arrangements, including maintained rights of way, advice, information and signage, are considered an adequate response to Snowdon’s natural risks.

    Stated by Snowdonia National Park AuthorityExisting 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 follow written mountain rescue advice on reducing risks of death and serious injury

Wider context from the report

“(1) Whilst it is acknowledged that Snowdon is an inherently dangerous terrain which attracts millions of walkers of all abilities every year without incident in most cases, I am concerned that the Snowdonia National Park Authority have chosen not to follow the advice of an organisation such as the Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team which has been given in writing on two occasions detailing how the risk of future deaths and serious injury could be reduced. (2) The deceased in this Inquest was a sensible , fit , hardworking young man, not a foolhardy risk- taker. He followed what he thought was an established path that would take him down to Glaslyn. Had the Park taken the previous advice of the Llanberis Mountain Rescue team to break up these misleading paths then this death would not have occurred as the deceased would not have attempted to descend the route which he took, which led to his death (3) It is acknowledged that the Park not only has to consider budgetary constraints but also the difficult and dangerous terrain where improvement works would be required. However, unless robust and permanent measures are taken to ensure that walkers cannot access what they believe to be established paths at the Summit of Snowdon ( thereby providing a mistaken sense of security ) when such paths peter out and leave walkers in perilous positions, then I am satisfied that there will be repeated deaths in these circumstances on Snowdon . ”

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

Failure to prevent walkers accessing misleading paths at the Summit of Snowdon

Wider context from the report

“(2) The deceased in this Inquest was a sensible , fit , hardworking young man, not a foolhardy risk- taker. He followed what he thought was an established path that would take him down to Glaslyn. Had the Park taken the previous advice of the Llanberis Mountain Rescue team to break up these misleading paths then this death would not have occurred as the deceased would not have attempted to descend the route which he took, which led to his death (3) It is acknowledged that the Park not only has to consider budgetary constraints but also the difficult and dangerous terrain where improvement works would be required. However, unless robust and permanent measures are taken to ensure that walkers cannot access what they believe to be established paths at the Summit of Snowdon ( thereby providing a mistaken sense of security ) when such paths peter out and leave walkers in perilous positions, then I am satisfied that there will be repeated deaths in these circumstances on Snowdon . ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable guidance and closure controls for unsafe pedestrian paths.

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

Install directional pillars at agreed Snowdon locations to reduce navigational errors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1) A direction pillar was to be placed between the summit and the back of Hafod Eryri so that walkers know the location of the Watkin Path. I have attached a photograph (marked No. 1) which confirms that this work was subsequently undertaken.”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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

Undertake landscaping on the summit’s south-east face to reduce path braiding and erosion scars.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following said letter a meeting took place with a representative from the Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team on 22nd May 2012. At that meeting the following was agreed:”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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

Discuss the practicality of constructing a low-level wall around the summit area beneath the trig point.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following said letter a meeting took place with a representative from the Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team on 22nd May 2012. At that meeting the following was agreed:”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 3 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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

Existing visitor-safety arrangements, including maintained rights of way, advice, information and signage, are considered an adequate response to Snowdon’s natural risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Response: The point should be made at the outset that this is not about budgetary constraints. I attach for your information Visitor Monitoring Figures for Snowdonia National Park for 2013. This shows the number of visitors to Snowdon dwarfs all other mountains in the Park. As such the Authority has chosen to try and direct visitors along the prescribed Rights of Way. In doing so visitors can expect to encounter a challenging day but along paths that are actively maintained. The Authority complies fully with the Visitor Safety in the Countryside Group and an extract of the Group’s publication including the principles governing such activities are also attached to this letter. As can be seen therefrom it is one of the principles that:”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 6 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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 screening or path works would not have affected the accident because the walkers left the East Ridge and attempted an unrecognised route.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As can be seen from the likely route and subsequent possible line taken by Mr Rattray and ████████ it is highly unlikely that this had any impact whatsoever in the tragic accident that was to follow. It is likely that Mr Rattray and ████████ initially followed the East Ridge. As previously stated this is a recognised path but not one that is maintained or promoted by this Authority. Had they continued along the East Ridge they could have made their way safely to the Watkin Path. However, this would not have led to their start point of Pen y Pass but rather to Nant Gwynant. From there they could however have caught the Snowdon Sherpa that would have taken them back to”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 4 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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

Breaking up the East Ridge path would be largely futile because it is widely described and would quickly be re-established.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team were kept informed during this time and no further letter was in fact received until 23rd April 2014 (dated 20th April 2014) and was written following the unfortunate death of Mr Rattray. This letter was unexpected in its contents as the Authority had implemented an action plan that had been agreed with Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team. This Authority has considerable experience and expertise with regard to visitor safety management principles in the uplands and in reality the nature of the terrain and associated activities does not allow us to be overly prescriptive. Any attempt to break up the East Ridge path in particular would be largely futile as it is a well described route which is widely available in the public domain through numerous scrambling and walking guide books and websites and so would quickly be re-established.”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 4 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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

    Review the effectiveness of the Snowdon directional pillars after 12 months.

    Stated by Snowdonia National Park AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 August 2014.
  2. 2

    Progress consultation on changing the lines of two public Rights of Way.

    Stated by Snowdonia National Park AuthorityStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 August 2014.

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

  1. 1

    Gwynedd Council has legal responsibility for the six main Snowdon paths, although the Authority manages and promotes them on its behalf.

    Stated by Snowdonia National Park AuthorityRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    Responsibility under CROW does not extend to personal safety on open access land.

    Stated by Snowdonia National Park AuthorityOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 the effectiveness of the Snowdon directional pillars after 12 months.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Local Access Forum together with additional significant input from the Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team - 6 of these directional pillars were sited on Snowdon at agreed specific points where evidence suggests that navigational errors were commonly made. Although much consultation was undertaken beforehand this work in itself was regarded as unnecessary by some “purists” who feel that Snowdon should not be signposted in this way and there has been one incident where one of the pillars was deliberately defaced. Following siting of the same there followed an internal meeting and at that time a decision was made to hold a 12 month review into the effectiveness of the siting of all the directional pillars.”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 4 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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

Progress consultation on changing the lines of two public Rights of Way.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Furthermore the process to change the lines of two public Rights of Way was initiated by the Authority in conjunction with Gwynedd Highways some time ago and is currently in its consultation phase.”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 4 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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

Gwynedd Council has legal responsibility for the six main Snowdon paths, although the Authority manages and promotes them on its behalf.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Turning to the management of Snowdon in general there are in fact six main paths to the summit of Snowdon which are on legal rights of way. Although these are in fact the legal responsibility of Gwynedd Council this Authority does in fact manage and promote these main paths on behalf of Gwynedd Council. However, all walkers on these six main paths are reasonably expected to take responsibility for themselves and we would also encourage them to use adequate footwear, clothing and equipment and to have undertaken some form of pre-route planning before setting out. With this in mind the Authority puts significant time and resources into promoting mountain safety messages and specifically targets the “pre-visit” phase by providing precise route descriptions for all of the main paths referred to above.”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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

Responsibility under CROW does not extend to personal safety on open access land.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, this does not extend to responsibility for personal safety and responsibilities under CROW include issuing short or long term restrictions and exclusions i.e. for nesting birds / stock management. The Authority also has responsibility for issuing longer term restrictions for the prevention of danger to the public that are man-made e.g. pollution / unexploded munitions / fire etc. There is also the power if the Authority so wishes to provide stiles and gates for accessing and egressing CROW access land.”

Source location

2014-0371-Response-by-Snowdonia-Park1
Page 2 · response
Published 12 August 2014

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