PFD report

SHANE GRAY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Feb 2019•West Sussex

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised4

  1. Failure to directly inform site contractors of Lake rules
  2. Lack of a physical barrier preventing young children entering the Lake
  3. Inadequate warning signage at Lake entry areas
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for drowning risks at open-water locations
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

    Erect pictorial “no swimming” signs alongside existing written warning signs.

    Stated by Park Holidays UK LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  2. Action

    Install additional warning signs around the Park, increasing signage from eight to 24 signs, including signs at both accessible Lake edges.

    Stated by Park Holidays UK LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    The existing number and placement of warning signs are considered adequate to highlight deep-water dangers and prohibit swimming.

    Stated by Park Holidays UK LimitedExisting 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

Failure to directly inform site contractors of Lake rules

Wider context from the report

“(4) Contractors who are working on the site are not directly made aware of the rules relating to the Lakes. Reliance is placed solely on these Contractors having seen the signs upon entering the Site. ”

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

Lack of a physical barrier preventing young children entering the Lake

Wider context from the report

“(2) The area close to the Lake (where the accident occurred) is to be occupied by families with young children and there is no physical barrier to prevent young children entering the Lake.. ”

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

Inadequate warning signage at Lake entry areas

Wider context from the report

“(1) That there was inadequate signage in this particular area of the Site where Shane entered the Lake warning him that Swimming was not permitted. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for drowning risks at open-water 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

Failure to provide pictorial signage for people unable to read

Wider context from the report

“(3) The signage that is in place in other parts of the sites in a text format (with no pictorial form) and therefore this signage does not provide for those individuals who cannot read or for children who are not of a reading age. ”

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

Erect pictorial “no swimming” signs alongside existing written warning signs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(3) The signage that is in place in other parts of the sites is in a text format (with no pictorial form) and therefore this signage does not provide for those individuals who cannot read or for children who are not of reading age”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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 additional warning signs around the Park, increasing signage from eight to 24 signs, including signs at both accessible Lake edges.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An Open Water Risk Assessment was carried out on 10 July 2018, before the incident. At that time, although extensive signage was in place at the Park, an action point was noted that the quantity of life rings and signage be reviewed. The new signage was ordered and delivered in August 2018 and was installed during August / early September. There are now 24 signs around the Park with two”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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 existing number and placement of warning signs are considered adequate to highlight deep-water dangers and prohibit swimming.

Verbatim wording from the response

“signs on the Lake's edges, one on the "camp site side" and one on the opposing side along a designated pedestrian path. There are no signs along the edges that border the A27 due to the thick trees that border the lake/road.”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

It is considered impractical to warn every contractor about lake dangers because risks and assessments are limited to contractors performing relevant tasks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(4) Contractors who are working on the site are not directly made aware of the rules relating to the Lakes. Reliance is placed solely on these Contractors having seen the signs upon entering the site”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Physical barriers around the lake are considered impractical because fisheries concessions require access for fishing and some lakes support water skiing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Company does not consider it to be practical to erect physical barriers around the Lake. Some of the lakes at the Park, including the Lake, are leased as syndicate lakes to nearby fisheries which means that the fisheries have a concession and are allowed to fish on the lakes. One of the lakes at the Park is also used for water skiing.”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Contractor competence checks, task-specific risk assessments, and existing signage are considered sufficient to address contractors’ awareness of lake rules.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Company carries out open water risk assessments for staff safety. These primarily relate to the Fisheries Wardens who do, on occasion, have need to access the water and/or lake edges. In this regard, the Company provides these wardens with life jackets to be used when undertaking such tasks. The Company does not agree that it would be practical to warn every contractor on site as to the dangers of the lakes, as a rule. The Company retains the services of contractors to carry out a number of different tasks, such as refuse collection and cleaning for example. It would be inappropriate to alert all contractors to all risks at the Park. Risk assessments are specific to the expected tasks and are only provided to staff who are to work directly on the lakes.”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Children unable to read are considered adequately protected by required supervision and parental advice in the safety information pack.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(3) The signage that is in place in other parts of the sites is in a text format (with no pictorial form) and therefore this signage does not provide for those individuals who cannot read or for children who are not of reading age”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Physical barriers are considered unnecessary because natural vegetation barriers and parental safety advice control the risk of children entering the lake.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Company does not agree a physical barrier is necessary in any event. The lakes are viewed as having "natural barriers" where they are surrounded by hedges, brambles or vegetation. Cleared areas around the lakes are manmade in order to allow the fishermen and water skiers access to the lakes. We would also note that it is not a legal requirement for bodies of water to be fenced off.”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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.3

  1. 1

    Provide life jackets to Fisheries Wardens undertaking tasks requiring access to the water or lake edges.

    Stated by Park Holidays UK LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  2. 2

    Carry out open-water risk assessments for staff safety, including risks affecting Fisheries Wardens accessing the water or lake edges.

    Stated by Park Holidays UK LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  3. 3

    Require contractors to participate in the Contractor Competence Assessment Scheme and submit risk assessments, method statements and insurance evidence.

    Stated by Park Holidays UK LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.

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

Provide life jackets to Fisheries Wardens undertaking tasks requiring access to the water or lake edges.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Company carries out open water risk assessments for staff safety. These primarily relate to the Fisheries Wardens who do, on occasion, have need to access the water and/or lake edges. In this regard, the Company provides these wardens with life jackets to be used when undertaking such tasks. The Company does not agree that it would be practical to warn every contractor on site as to the dangers of the lakes, as a rule. The Company retains the services of contractors to carry out a number of different tasks, such as refuse collection and cleaning for example. It would be inappropriate to alert all contractors to all risks at the Park. Risk assessments are specific to the expected tasks and are only provided to staff who are to work directly on the lakes.”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Carry out open-water risk assessments for staff safety, including risks affecting Fisheries Wardens accessing the water or lake edges.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Company carries out open water risk assessments for staff safety. These primarily relate to the Fisheries Wardens who do, on occasion, have need to access the water and/or lake edges. In this regard, the Company provides these wardens with life jackets to be used when undertaking such tasks. The Company does not agree that it would be practical to warn every contractor on site as to the dangers of the lakes, as a rule. The Company retains the services of contractors to carry out a number of different tasks, such as refuse collection and cleaning for example. It would be inappropriate to alert all contractors to all risks at the Park. Risk assessments are specific to the expected tasks and are only provided to staff who are to work directly on the lakes.”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Require contractors to participate in the Contractor Competence Assessment Scheme and submit risk assessments, method statements and insurance evidence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Company also has a pre-qualifying questionnaire scheme, entitled the Contractor Competence Assessment Scheme ("CCAS") whereby all contractors are required to provide their risk assessments, method statements and proof of insurance to demonstrate that they are responsible contractors. The Company now retains a third party to manage the scheme and contractors are required to be part of the CCAS.”

Source location

2019-0075-Response-by-Park-Holidays-UK
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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