PFD report

Joyce Plested · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Aug 2015•Manchester South

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

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 raised2

  1. Unsafe positioning of the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the mini roundabout
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
  2. Lack of pedestrian barriers protecting the footpath by the mini roundabout
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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

Unsafe positioning of the pedestrian crossing adjacent to the mini roundabout

Wider context from the report

“Immediately outside the doors to the store, there is a mini roundabout and across two of the exit roads therefrom there are “Zebra Crossings”. This makes this a very ‘busy’ junction and there are numerous matters to which both drivers and pedestrians have to give their full attention. In evidence at the inquest, the expert “Crash reconstruction” Police Officer confirmed that if the crossing which traverses Curzon Road were to be positioned further away from the mini roundabout and the footpath by the roundabout to be protected by pedestrian barriers, this would be a much safer environment. The current position means that the crossing is on land owned by Sainsbury PLC whereas if it were moved further down it would be on the public highway maintained by Trafford MBC. It therefore seems to me that it would be a relatively simple and hugely beneficial solution, simply to move the crossing to the suggested safer position. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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

Lack of pedestrian barriers protecting the footpath by the mini roundabout

Wider context from the report

“Immediately outside the doors to the store, there is a mini roundabout and across two of the exit roads therefrom there are “Zebra Crossings”. This makes this a very ‘busy’ junction and there are numerous matters to which both drivers and pedestrians have to give their full attention. In evidence at the inquest, the expert “Crash reconstruction” Police Officer confirmed that if the crossing which traverses Curzon Road were to be positioned further away from the mini roundabout and the footpath by the roundabout to be protected by pedestrian barriers, this would be a much safer environment. The current position means that the crossing is on land owned by Sainsbury PLC whereas if it were moved further down it would be on the public highway maintained by Trafford MBC. It therefore seems to me that it would be a relatively simple and hugely beneficial solution, simply to move the crossing to the suggested safer position. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

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

    Carry out a Stage 1 and 2 road safety audit of the proposed crossing and pedestrian-refuge scheme.

    Stated by Sainsbury’s plcStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 August 2015.
  2. 2

    Consider Department for Transport crossing-design advice and assess options for relocating the pedestrian crossing away from the mini roundabout.

    Stated by Sainsbury’s plcStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 August 2015.

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

  1. 1

    Responsibility for the car park layout and crossing provisions rests with Sainsbury’s, not the Council.

    Stated by Sainsbury’s plcRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Carry out a Stage 1 and 2 road safety audit of the proposed crossing and pedestrian-refuge scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Arrangements have been made to carry out a stage 1 & 2 Road Safety Audit in accordance with national standards on the proposal and the results will be utilised to determine the final scheme. It is anticipated that the audit will be completed by the end of October.”

Source location

Joyce-PlestedR
Page 1 · response
Published 20 August 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

Consider Department for Transport crossing-design advice and assess options for relocating the pedestrian crossing away from the mini roundabout.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Consideration has been given to the Department of Transports advice on the design of pedestrian crossings and various options have been considered which would locate the pedestrian crossing point away from the mini roundabout, as suggested by you. Following due deliberation it is recommended to provide a pedestrian refuge as shown on the attached plan. This proposal extends a pedestrian guard rail around the radius of the junction which directs pedestrians to the crossing point. It also includes works within the car park; specifically re-locating the existing crossing away from the junction and improving radii at the junction, which will improve access into the car park.”

Source location

Joyce-PlestedR
Page 1 · response
Published 20 August 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

Responsibility for the car park layout and crossing provisions rests with Sainsbury’s, not the Council.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Firstly I would advise that Sainsbury’s plc are responsible for the layout of the car park and the crossing provisions provided within it. I can confirm that the access road leading to the car park is Curzon Road which is adopted highway and as such the Council as Highway Authority are responsible for this road.”

Source location

Joyce-PlestedR
Page 1 · response
Published 20 August 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