PFD report

Doreen TURNER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Apr 2025•West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

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
2

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 raised1

  1. Failure to prevent vehicles from entering the canal at the end of the road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control and visibility of hazardous kerb edgesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate roadside vehicle-restraint barriers
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.1

  1. Action

    Install reflective bollards along the canal bank to provide a clearer visual indication of the road end.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 May 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Existing kerb height provides sufficient physical and audible warning; raising it is not considered necessary and would cause visual intrusion.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilExisting 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 prevent vehicles from entering the canal at the end of the road

Wider context from the report

“The inquest was told that South Bank is a residential cul de sac. At the end of the road, there is a footpath which is perpendicular to the road which also runs alongside the canal. The end of the road has kerbing, a 5ft foot grass section and then the canal. The inquest heard that the kerbing is less than standard height and there are no devices present to prevent a vehicle which passes over the kerbstones from entering the canal. The evidence was that Mrs Turner was the second driver to have entered the canal in a vehicle in the last 5 years at that location. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control and visibility of hazardous kerb edges; Inadequate roadside vehicle-restraint barriers.

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 reflective bollards along the canal bank to provide a clearer visual indication of the road end.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Installing bollards with reflectors on the canal bank within the gap between an existing traffic sign post and the northern end of the turning head.”

Source location

Response from West Sussex County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 19 May 2025

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 kerb height provides sufficient physical and audible warning; raising it is not considered necessary and would cause visual intrusion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As noted, South Bank is a residential cul de sac. Traffic speeds approaching the end of the road are very low as drivers approach with caution influenced by the narrow confines of the road due to on-street parking. It is appreciated that the kerb height in the turning head at the end of South Bank is lower than many kerbs at the edge of a public highway, although it does still provide sufficient physical separation between the road edge and the grass bank of the canal to give a physical and audible warning to a driver. Raising the height of the kerbs would not necessarily offer any additional prevention of a vehicle overrunning onto the bank, unless they were of such a height as to fully stop a vehicle – this type of kerbing would be a significant visual intrusion and disruption to the canal bank.”

Source location

Response from West Sussex County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 19 May 2025

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.1

  1. 1

    Replace the missing canal towpath post with way-markers to indicate the road end.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 May 2025.

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 missing canal towpath post with way-markers to indicate the road end.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Replacing a missing wooden post with way-markers on the canal towpath to the north side.”

Source location

Response from West Sussex County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 19 May 2025

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