PFD report

Kelly Nadine DUNNE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Mar 2023•County Durham and Darlington

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised7

  1. Failure to provide adequate speed control within the junction series
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations
  2. Inadequate junction capacity for traffic volume
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  3. Failure to account for increased traffic from planned area development
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.2

  1. Action

    Secure funding to bring forward signal-control improvements at the West Rainton and Pittington Lane junctions.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 March 2023.
  2. Action

    Implement signal control at the West Rainton and Pittington Lane junctions.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 March 2023.

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

  1. Position

    No further accident investigation and prevention intervention was warranted because accident frequency remained unchanged and traffic signals were being developed.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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 provide adequate speed control within the junction series

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest evidence was heard from the lead road traffic collision investigator in the case that there are significant concerns in relation to the adequacy and layout of this particular junction and the five other junctions on this stretch of road (A690). Evidence was given that since this fatality, there has been another fatal road traffic collision on the 22/12/22, at the junction directly opposite. Further that between 11/01/00 and 31/12/22 there have been 21 collisions at this junction (including this fatality and 3 other serious collisions) and that there have been 29 collisions at the other junctions on this stretch of road (including one further fatality and 6 other serious collisions). The concerns in relation to this junction, and the other junctions relate to:- 1. The volume of traffic that the junctions must manage. 2. The complexity of traffic movement at the junctions. 3. The speed limit in the vicinity of the junctions. Concerns were also raised in relation to the planned extensive expansion/development of the area in the vicinity of the junction, including increased housing development, a proposed retail park, football site, as well as developments occurring more widely in the area which will lead to increased traffic, and that any proposed improvements to the junction are not required until prior to the occupation of the 39th dwelling on the site. The concern is that the proposals to improve the safety of the junction are not sufficient nor timely, and that consideration does not appear to have been given to reducing the speed limit within the junction series. A further concern was raised that the proposed improvements to the junction considered this junction in isolation, and did not consider the series of junctions on this stretch of road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations.

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

Inadequate junction capacity for traffic volume

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest evidence was heard from the lead road traffic collision investigator in the case that there are significant concerns in relation to the adequacy and layout of this particular junction and the five other junctions on this stretch of road (A690). Evidence was given that since this fatality, there has been another fatal road traffic collision on the 22/12/22, at the junction directly opposite. Further that between 11/01/00 and 31/12/22 there have been 21 collisions at this junction (including this fatality and 3 other serious collisions) and that there have been 29 collisions at the other junctions on this stretch of road (including one further fatality and 6 other serious collisions). The concerns in relation to this junction, and the other junctions relate to:- 1. The volume of traffic that the junctions must manage. 2. The complexity of traffic movement at the junctions. 3. The speed limit in the vicinity of the junctions. Concerns were also raised in relation to the planned extensive expansion/development of the area in the vicinity of the junction, including increased housing development, a proposed retail park, football site, as well as developments occurring more widely in the area which will lead to increased traffic, and that any proposed improvements to the junction are not required until prior to the occupation of the 39th dwelling on the site. The concern is that the proposals to improve the safety of the junction are not sufficient nor timely, and that consideration does not appear to have been given to reducing the speed limit within the junction series. A further concern was raised that the proposed improvements to the junction considered this junction in isolation, and did not consider the series of junctions on this stretch of road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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 account for increased traffic from planned area development

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest evidence was heard from the lead road traffic collision investigator in the case that there are significant concerns in relation to the adequacy and layout of this particular junction and the five other junctions on this stretch of road (A690). Evidence was given that since this fatality, there has been another fatal road traffic collision on the 22/12/22, at the junction directly opposite. Further that between 11/01/00 and 31/12/22 there have been 21 collisions at this junction (including this fatality and 3 other serious collisions) and that there have been 29 collisions at the other junctions on this stretch of road (including one further fatality and 6 other serious collisions). The concerns in relation to this junction, and the other junctions relate to:- 1. The volume of traffic that the junctions must manage. 2. The complexity of traffic movement at the junctions. 3. The speed limit in the vicinity of the junctions. Concerns were also raised in relation to the planned extensive expansion/development of the area in the vicinity of the junction, including increased housing development, a proposed retail park, football site, as well as developments occurring more widely in the area which will lead to increased traffic, and that any proposed improvements to the junction are not required until prior to the occupation of the 39th dwelling on the site. The concern is that the proposals to improve the safety of the junction are not sufficient nor timely, and that consideration does not appear to have been given to reducing the speed limit within the junction series. A further concern was raised that the proposed improvements to the junction considered this junction in isolation, and did not consider the series of junctions on this stretch of road. ”

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 assess junction improvements across the junction series

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest evidence was heard from the lead road traffic collision investigator in the case that there are significant concerns in relation to the adequacy and layout of this particular junction and the five other junctions on this stretch of road (A690). Evidence was given that since this fatality, there has been another fatal road traffic collision on the 22/12/22, at the junction directly opposite. Further that between 11/01/00 and 31/12/22 there have been 21 collisions at this junction (including this fatality and 3 other serious collisions) and that there have been 29 collisions at the other junctions on this stretch of road (including one further fatality and 6 other serious collisions). The concerns in relation to this junction, and the other junctions relate to:- 1. The volume of traffic that the junctions must manage. 2. The complexity of traffic movement at the junctions. 3. The speed limit in the vicinity of the junctions. Concerns were also raised in relation to the planned extensive expansion/development of the area in the vicinity of the junction, including increased housing development, a proposed retail park, football site, as well as developments occurring more widely in the area which will lead to increased traffic, and that any proposed improvements to the junction are not required until prior to the occupation of the 39th dwelling on the site. The concern is that the proposals to improve the safety of the junction are not sufficient nor timely, and that consideration does not appear to have been given to reducing the speed limit within the junction series. A further concern was raised that the proposed improvements to the junction considered this junction in isolation, and did not consider the series of junctions on this stretch of road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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

Delays in implementing junction safety improvements

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest evidence was heard from the lead road traffic collision investigator in the case that there are significant concerns in relation to the adequacy and layout of this particular junction and the five other junctions on this stretch of road (A690). Evidence was given that since this fatality, there has been another fatal road traffic collision on the 22/12/22, at the junction directly opposite. Further that between 11/01/00 and 31/12/22 there have been 21 collisions at this junction (including this fatality and 3 other serious collisions) and that there have been 29 collisions at the other junctions on this stretch of road (including one further fatality and 6 other serious collisions). The concerns in relation to this junction, and the other junctions relate to:- 1. The volume of traffic that the junctions must manage. 2. The complexity of traffic movement at the junctions. 3. The speed limit in the vicinity of the junctions. Concerns were also raised in relation to the planned extensive expansion/development of the area in the vicinity of the junction, including increased housing development, a proposed retail park, football site, as well as developments occurring more widely in the area which will lead to increased traffic, and that any proposed improvements to the junction are not required until prior to the occupation of the 39th dwelling on the site. The concern is that the proposals to improve the safety of the junction are not sufficient nor timely, and that consideration does not appear to have been given to reducing the speed limit within the junction series. A further concern was raised that the proposed improvements to the junction considered this junction in isolation, and did not consider the series of junctions on this stretch of road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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 junction safety improvements

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest evidence was heard from the lead road traffic collision investigator in the case that there are significant concerns in relation to the adequacy and layout of this particular junction and the five other junctions on this stretch of road (A690). Evidence was given that since this fatality, there has been another fatal road traffic collision on the 22/12/22, at the junction directly opposite. Further that between 11/01/00 and 31/12/22 there have been 21 collisions at this junction (including this fatality and 3 other serious collisions) and that there have been 29 collisions at the other junctions on this stretch of road (including one further fatality and 6 other serious collisions). The concerns in relation to this junction, and the other junctions relate to:- 1. The volume of traffic that the junctions must manage. 2. The complexity of traffic movement at the junctions. 3. The speed limit in the vicinity of the junctions. Concerns were also raised in relation to the planned extensive expansion/development of the area in the vicinity of the junction, including increased housing development, a proposed retail park, football site, as well as developments occurring more widely in the area which will lead to increased traffic, and that any proposed improvements to the junction are not required until prior to the occupation of the 39th dwelling on the site. The concern is that the proposals to improve the safety of the junction are not sufficient nor timely, and that consideration does not appear to have been given to reducing the speed limit within the junction series. A further concern was raised that the proposed improvements to the junction considered this junction in isolation, and did not consider the series of junctions on this stretch of road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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 safely manage complex traffic movements at junctions

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the Inquest evidence was heard from the lead road traffic collision investigator in the case that there are significant concerns in relation to the adequacy and layout of this particular junction and the five other junctions on this stretch of road (A690). Evidence was given that since this fatality, there has been another fatal road traffic collision on the 22/12/22, at the junction directly opposite. Further that between 11/01/00 and 31/12/22 there have been 21 collisions at this junction (including this fatality and 3 other serious collisions) and that there have been 29 collisions at the other junctions on this stretch of road (including one further fatality and 6 other serious collisions). The concerns in relation to this junction, and the other junctions relate to:- 1. The volume of traffic that the junctions must manage. 2. The complexity of traffic movement at the junctions. 3. The speed limit in the vicinity of the junctions. Concerns were also raised in relation to the planned extensive expansion/development of the area in the vicinity of the junction, including increased housing development, a proposed retail park, football site, as well as developments occurring more widely in the area which will lead to increased traffic, and that any proposed improvements to the junction are not required until prior to the occupation of the 39th dwelling on the site. The concern is that the proposals to improve the safety of the junction are not sufficient nor timely, and that consideration does not appear to have been given to reducing the speed limit within the junction series. A further concern was raised that the proposed improvements to the junction considered this junction in isolation, and did not consider the series of junctions on this stretch of road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Secure funding to bring forward signal-control improvements at the West Rainton and Pittington Lane junctions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Appraisal of the TA established that the West Rainton junction would be over capacity as the development became occupied and mitigation measures were required to alleviate traffic pressures. For this reason, a planning condition was placed on the developer to install traffic lights at the West Rainton location only upon occupancy of the 39th dwelling, and the impacts on the Pittington Road / A690 junction were assessed as being negligible. However, the Council took the opportunity to maximise improvements around this junction and made the decision to improve the Pittington Road / A690 junction in tandem with the West Rainton junction, using central government funding via the Local Transport Plan.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 21 March 2023

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

Implement signal control at the West Rainton and Pittington Lane junctions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the planning approval included the ‘trigger’ for signal installation, officers have worked closely with the developer and have successfully secured the necessary funding to allow the signal installation to be brought forward and a scheme to implement signal control at both the West Rainton and Pittington Lane junctions is programmed to commence 2nd May for approximately 14 weeks.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 21 March 2023

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

No further accident investigation and prevention intervention was warranted because accident frequency remained unchanged and traffic signals were being developed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, given that the annual average accident total was remaining the same and, on the understanding that the impending traffic signals scheme was in development, it was considered that no further action was warranted in terms of AIP intervention.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 21 March 2023

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

A lower speed limit would not be credible or appropriate and could increase danger because a significant proportion of motorists might ignore it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A speed limit is an absolute maximum, and it is the driver’s responsibility to drive at a speed suitable to the environment and conditions. It is an intention of the Department for Transport guidance to ensure that speed limits are credible with the aim that they become self-evident and self-enforcing, by virtue of their surroundings. A limit lower than the current posted limit would not be credible or appropriate and would likely result in a significant proportion of motorists ignoring the limit. In addition, the imposition of non-credible lower limits can raise expectations that the speeds of vehicles will be reduced but seldom realised in practice, resulting in greater danger with drivers making decisions based on incorrect assumptions, and also unfair criticism of the police who have to enforce the speed limits.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 21 March 2023

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

    Continue studying vehicle accidents and taking appropriate measures to prevent road traffic accidents.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 March 2023.

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

Continue studying vehicle accidents and taking appropriate measures to prevent road traffic accidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to section 6 of your report I can confirm we will continue to carry out our duty under Section 39 of The Road Traffic Act 1988 ‘to carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles and, in the light of those studies, take such measures as appear to the authority to be appropriate to prevent such accidents’.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 21 March 2023

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