Daniel Waite · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Nov 2020•Mid Kent and Medway

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an 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
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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. Lack of coning or signage requirements for stopped works vehicles on the A20 Ashford Road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls on hazardous roadside vehicle stopping and parkingPart of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  2. Lack of parking restrictions for stopped works vehicles on the A20 Ashford Road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls on hazardous roadside vehicle stopping and parking

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Tarmac

    Implement a permanent traffic regulation order and replace temporary posts and signage with permanent clearway infrastructure.

  2. Tarmac

    Circulate incident details internally so personnel making future vehicle-location risk decisions are aware of what happened.

  3. Tarmac

    Install clearway signs and implement a temporary traffic regulation order prohibiting parking along the carriageway section.

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

  1. Tarmac

    Responsibility for approving and implementing road signage, traffic restrictions and traffic management rested with the relevant Highways Authority.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. Tarmac

    Tarmac considered its risk-based approach to vehicle-location decisions appropriate and did not identify a need to change it.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  3. Tarmac

    Traffic restrictions, signage and traffic management changes were outside Tarmac’s power to implement directly.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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 coning or signage requirements for stopped works vehicles on the A20 Ashford Road

Wider context from the report

“(1) The A20 Ashford Road has no parking restrictions in force for this stretch of road. A total of 8 tipper lorries had been directed to stop on the A20 Ashford Road, Hollingbourne, close to the Mercure Hotel to await the deployment of motorway works on the M20 Motorway. The evidence at the inquest revealed that there was no requirement for coning or signage that may have alerted other road users to their presence. (2) There is not at present any restriction to parking or a requirement for signage on this section of the road such as a clearway and this is of particular concern. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls on hazardous roadside vehicle stopping and parking; Inadequate road warning signage.

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 parking restrictions for stopped works vehicles on the A20 Ashford Road

Wider context from the report

“(1) The A20 Ashford Road has no parking restrictions in force for this stretch of road. A total of 8 tipper lorries had been directed to stop on the A20 Ashford Road, Hollingbourne, close to the Mercure Hotel to await the deployment of motorway works on the M20 Motorway. The evidence at the inquest revealed that there was no requirement for coning or signage that may have alerted other road users to their presence. (2) There is not at present any restriction to parking or a requirement for signage on this section of the road such as a clearway and this is of particular concern. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls on hazardous roadside vehicle stopping and parking.

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 a permanent traffic regulation order and replace temporary posts and signage with permanent clearway infrastructure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally, Kent County Council are implementing a sealed permanent traffic regulation order to replace the temporary order, with permanent posts and signage to replace those temporarily put on site. It will be robustly indicated on site that this road is designated a ‘Clearway’ and that no parking can take place.”

Source location

2020-0241-Responses-from-Director-Highways-Transportation-Waste-and-TARMAC-A-CRH-Company-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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

Circulate incident details internally so personnel making future vehicle-location risk decisions are aware of what happened.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We can assure the Coroner, and Mr Waite’s family, that this incident is treated with the utmost seriousness. Tarmac is committed to the health and safety of its workforce and all those who we come in to contact with. The business has reviewed its approach and considers that its risk based approach to vehicle location remains appropriate but has nonetheless reacted and reflected on the tragic events; we have circulated the details of the incident internally so that those involved in future risk decisions are fully aware of what happened.”

Source location

2020-0241-Responses-from-Director-Highways-Transportation-Waste-and-TARMAC-A-CRH-Company-Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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

Install clearway signs and implement a temporary traffic regulation order prohibiting parking along the carriageway section.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would confirm that there are now ‘clearway’ signs in place at both ends of this section of dualled carriageway and a temporary traffic regulation order has been put in place to enable immediate enforcement of this clearway. This order prohibits any parking along this section of carriageway.”

Source location

2020-0241-Responses-from-Director-Highways-Transportation-Waste-and-TARMAC-A-CRH-Company-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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 approving and implementing road signage, traffic restrictions and traffic management rested with the relevant Highways Authority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Taking both of the Coroner’s concerns, it is Tarmac’s respectful position that the parking restrictions and requirements for signage are matters that are within the power of the relevant Highways Authority. Indeed, any requirement to install signage or other forms of traffic management on the road would have required the approval of the Local Authority. For these reasons, it is not within the power of Tarmac to be able to make direct changes as a result of the matters raised by the Coroner.”

Source location

2020-0241-Responses-from-Director-Highways-Transportation-Waste-and-TARMAC-A-CRH-Company-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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

Tarmac considered its risk-based approach to vehicle-location decisions appropriate and did not identify a need to change it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The location of the wagons is a matter that is carefully considered by the individuals within Tarmac, who will take a risk-based approach on the appropriate location. Such an approach was adopted on the day of the incident, locating the vehicles in what was considered to be an appropriate location to respond to the work being conducted on the M20.”

Source location

2020-0241-Responses-from-Director-Highways-Transportation-Waste-and-TARMAC-A-CRH-Company-Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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

Traffic restrictions, signage and traffic management changes were outside Tarmac’s power to implement directly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Taking both of the Coroner’s concerns, it is Tarmac’s respectful position that the parking restrictions and requirements for signage are matters that are within the power of the relevant Highways Authority. Indeed, any requirement to install signage or other forms of traffic management on the road would have required the approval of the Local Authority. For these reasons, it is not within the power of Tarmac to be able to make direct changes as a result of the matters raised by the Coroner.”

Source location

2020-0241-Responses-from-Director-Highways-Transportation-Waste-and-TARMAC-A-CRH-Company-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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