PFD report

John William BASS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 May 2024•Surrey

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
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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Lack of clear guidance for inspectors identifying vegetation encroachment on footpaths
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable highway inspection and asset-recording processes
  2. Insufficient frequency of pavement inspections
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable highway inspection and asset-recording processes
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

    Remind inspectors to assess pavement narrowing or obstruction risks to vulnerable users and request maintenance or urgent responses where necessary.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 May 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Current inspection processes and public-reporting mechanisms sufficiently address pavement debris and vegetation risks without changing the inspection guidance.

    Stated by Surrey 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

Lack of clear guidance for inspectors identifying vegetation encroachment on footpaths

Wider context from the report

“When the footpath was inspected in November 2022, just weeks before the accident, the highway inspector did not consider the narrowing of pathway as a safety concern and or met an intervention level which required action. It is noted in the policy that there is reference to trees and vegetation, but no clear guidance in terms of vegetation which encroaches on pavements. I am concerned that there is a risk to future pavement users if clear guidance is not provided to inspectors to identify safety concerns regarding vegetation on growth footpaths. The Highways current inspection of the pavement is only yearly albeit in evidence given at inquest by the family, this road is used frequently by cyclists next to a busy road. I am therefore concerned that the frequency of the inspections need to be reviewed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable highway inspection and asset-recording processes.

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

Insufficient frequency of pavement inspections

Wider context from the report

“When the footpath was inspected in November 2022, just weeks before the accident, the highway inspector did not consider the narrowing of pathway as a safety concern and or met an intervention level which required action. It is noted in the policy that there is reference to trees and vegetation, but no clear guidance in terms of vegetation which encroaches on pavements. I am concerned that there is a risk to future pavement users if clear guidance is not provided to inspectors to identify safety concerns regarding vegetation on growth footpaths. The Highways current inspection of the pavement is only yearly albeit in evidence given at inquest by the family, this road is used frequently by cyclists next to a busy road. I am therefore concerned that the frequency of the inspections need to be reviewed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable highway inspection and asset-recording processes.

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

Remind inspectors to assess pavement narrowing or obstruction risks to vulnerable users and request maintenance or urgent responses where necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“SCC believes that our current inspection processes are in line with the legal requirements and with the risk-based approach encouraged by national guidance. Following the receipt of the Prevention of Future Deaths report however, we have reminded our inspectors to consider the risk that narrowing/obstruction situations may pose, particularly to vulnerable users of pavements, such as wheelchair users or those with push chairs etc and to request maintenance work where needed, or to raise as an immediate risk for a quicker response where they consider such a risk to be very serious or life threatening.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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

Current inspection processes and public-reporting mechanisms sufficiently address pavement debris and vegetation risks without changing the inspection guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Instances such as the situation on the pavements of the A217 in November/December 2022 where there has been a narrowing of the footway due to seasonal vegetation growth/detritus, are considered as street cleansing or general maintenance issues rather than as “safety defects” which require an immediate response. These situations are generally identified through reports from the public.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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 footway's annual Category 4 inspection is considered appropriate because its hierarchy is correctly assessed and public reports are handled throughout the year.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Footways have four levels of hierarchy. The highest is a primary walking route (Category 1) which is inspected monthly, then a secondary walking route (Category 2) which is inspected every three months, link footways (Category 3) which are inspected every 6 months and finally local access footways (Category 4) which are inspected annually.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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

    Remove debris and cut encroaching vegetation at the reported footway location.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 May 2024.

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

  1. 1

    The inspection policy need not address cyclists because pavements are legally intended for pedestrians, not cyclists.

    Stated by Surrey 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

Remove debris and cut encroaching vegetation at the reported footway location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where members of the public report issues to us, a Highways Customer Officer will attend and may report issues such as this as “maintenance issues” which are passed on to our maintenance team to carry out routine maintenance. This location was reported by a member of the public in January 2023 and following a review by the Highways Customer Officer, work was requested to remove debris and cut any encroaching vegetation overhanging the footway. This is the work which was carried out in January 2023, as mentioned during the Inquest.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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 inspection policy need not address cyclists because pavements are legally intended for pedestrians, not cyclists.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 and Rule 64 of the Highway Code state that pavements are for the use of pedestrians not cyclists and accordingly, SCC’s Highway Safety Inspection policy only considers the safety of pavements with regards to pedestrians and not cyclists.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 May 2024

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