PFD report

James Alexander SCOTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Jul 2025•Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
7

Described in 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 raised4

  1. Inadequate warning signage for known flood risks
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  2. Failure to maintain drainage gullies regularly
  3. Known flood risk in the area
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of flood risk to residents in flood-prone areas
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.5

  1. Action

    Establish M3 Junction 9 scheme responsibility for cyclic maintenance and add regular driven drainage-defect checks by a Traffic Safety Control Officer.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2025.
  2. Action

    Reinstate and retain the “Road liable to flooding” sign until drainage actions and monitoring are complete, subject to drainage-engineer consent.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2025.
  3. Action

    Repair or replace three National Highways-owned gullies by 31 December 2025.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 July 2025.

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

  1. Position

    HCC is responsible for repairing, cleaning and investigating the relevant drainage system and ditch, with scheme support where possible.

    Stated by National HighwaysRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 warning signage for known flood risks

Wider context from the report

“(3) The fact that only a Temporary Sign was in place in an area known for years to be a flood risk ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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

Failure to maintain drainage gullies regularly

Wider context from the report

“(2) Whilst the precise cause of the flooding is unknown, a more regular maintenance schedule may have prevented the buildup of vegetation within the gullies and therefore assisted in the drainage of the heavy rainfall experienced that day thus reducing the amount of surface water present on the 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

Known flood risk in the area

Wider context from the report

“(1) The area is a known flood risk ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of flood risk to residents in flood-prone areas.

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

Surface water on the road

Wider context from the report

“(4) The surface water was a contributory factor in this death ”

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

Establish M3 Junction 9 scheme responsibility for cyclic maintenance and add regular driven drainage-defect checks by a Traffic Safety Control Officer.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The location of the incident has now been taken under the management of the NH M3 Junction 9 (J9) major improvement scheme to improve congestion and traffic flow in the wider area. The scheme is being delivered by our supply chain and overseen by ourselves. In circumstances like this we invoke a Detailed Local Operating Agreement (DLOA) which sets out whether the scheme or normal operations is responsible for the maintenance and inspection activity in the area. The M3 J9 major improvement scheme has now taken responsibility for cyclic maintenance in this area until completion of their scheme scheduled for March 2028. Safety inspections will remain with our NH Inspectors but with the addition of regular driven site checks by the scheme Traffic Safety Control Officer (TSCO) who will identify and act on any defects that arise.”

Source location

Response from National Highway Agency
Page 3 · response
Published 28 July 2025

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

Reinstate and retain the “Road liable to flooding” sign until drainage actions and monitoring are complete, subject to drainage-engineer consent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At the first site visit on 28 August 2025, it was noted that the sign had been laid down on the verge, this was reinstated by NH that day. The M3 J9 scheme has been instructed to ensure the sign remains in place until instructed to be removed by the NH Operations Directorate South East Drainage team upon completion of the actions proposed and a suitable period of monitoring.”

Source location

Response from National Highway Agency
Page 5 · response
Published 28 July 2025

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

Repair or replace three National Highways-owned gullies by 31 December 2025.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Repair or replace eight gullies and locate outfalls in the ditch on the southbound verge between Kings Worthy House and London Road pedestrian crossing. [This action required HCC collaboration to clarify ownership].”

Source location

Response from National Highway Agency
Page 4 · response
Published 28 July 2025

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

Review resurfacing extents and assess drainage improvements to remove the rolling-crown flat spot and improve flow into gullies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. A review of resurfacing extents within the M3 J9 scheme as the program currently stops approximately 25 metres short of the current NH boundary and an extension will avoid a double joint in a short distance.”

Source location

Response from National Highway Agency
Page 4 · response
Published 28 July 2025

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

Complete flood-risk drainage maintenance, including vegetation and detritus clearance, gully jetting, sweeping, inlet checks and overburden removal.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The first drainage flood risk site visit of financial year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 was ordered on 23 April 2024 with a six-month window for completion. The work was completed on 31 August 2024. The drainage flood risk site visit prior to this was carried out on 23 November 2023 which was flood risk site visit two for the previous financial year.”

Source location

Response from National Highway Agency
Page 3 · response
Published 28 July 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

HCC is responsible for repairing, cleaning and investigating the relevant drainage system and ditch, with scheme support where possible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Further works to be considered by M3 J9 scheme on the central reserve due to the pedestrian crossing being moved out slightly to narrow the lane. HCC to repair defective gullies at Itchen Abbas Road.”

Source location

Response from National Highway Agency
Page 5 · response
Published 28 July 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

No further signage action is currently required because extensive M3 J9 traffic management and signage are in place.

Verbatim wording from the response

“No further signage action required at present due to extensive M3 J9 scheme traffic management and signage now in place. M3 J9 scheme to ensure that “Road liable to flooding” sign is not removed without prior consent of NH drainage engineers.”

Source location

Response from National Highway Agency
Page 6 · response
Published 28 July 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.2

  1. 1

    Clarify and agree responsibility for the drainage system with Hampshire County Council.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 July 2025.
  2. 2

    Review further drainage works identified during the September overnight closure.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 July 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

Clarify and agree responsibility for the drainage system with Hampshire County Council.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Upon receipt of the coroner’s concerns, we found there to be a lack of clarity on the ownership of the overall drainage system at this location. As a result, NH and HCC met on site on 12 September 2025, and this has now been clarified and agreed. This clarification is set out further on in this response.”

Source location

Response from National Highway Agency
Page 2 · response
Published 28 July 2025

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

Review further drainage works identified during the September overnight closure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to Items 8 and 9 of the Maintenance Work above, the following further action is to be undertaken:”

Source location

Response from National Highway Agency
Page 5 · response
Published 28 July 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

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026