PFD report

Millie TAYLOR-NOONAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Apr 2020•Lincolnshire

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
4

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 raised7

  1. Lack of pedestrian railings at the school crossing area
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic
  2. Lack of indication of an imminent school crossing area
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
  3. Lack of a temporary 20-mile-per-hour speed limit during school start and finish periods
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locationsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads
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.4

  1. Action

    Provide school staff to marshal pupils at the gate and hold them until it is safe to cross.

    Stated by Lincolnshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 May 2020.
  2. Action

    Examine the Academy’s vehicular access arrangements jointly with the school at exit times.

    Stated by Lincolnshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 May 2020.
  3. Action

    Install streetlighting at the school entrance as an authorised exceptional measure.

    Stated by Lincolnshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 May 2020.

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

  1. Position

    A teacher marshals pupils at the school gate, providing a safe alternative to a light-controlled crossing despite unmet eligibility criteria.

    Stated by Lincolnshire 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 pedestrian railings at the school crossing area

Wider context from the report

“1. The location of the collision is in the immediate vicinity to the access and exit entrances to a large secondary school; 2. Whilst motorists have the benefit of advanced warning triangles indicating to road users that there is a school 100 ahead along with a speed limit repeater the location of the incident took place near a dropped kerb with a section of tactile pavement on the footpaths either side of the road, there is no indication to road users as to the imminence of what, was in reality a school crossing area and the area is also unlit; 3. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased may have been distracted by other road traffic users and in particular a school bus emerging from the school premises in the immediacy of the collision that serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of pedestrians in this location at such a time; 4. There are no other measures that exist to protect pedestrians such as: a. Railings; b. Street lighting; c. An automated zebra or other form of crossing to allow a priority to be given to pedestrians; d. A school crossing patrol officer; e. A temporary reduction in the speed limit to 20 miles per hour at the beginning and end of the school day; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

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 indication of an imminent school crossing area

Wider context from the report

“1. The location of the collision is in the immediate vicinity to the access and exit entrances to a large secondary school; 2. Whilst motorists have the benefit of advanced warning triangles indicating to road users that there is a school 100 ahead along with a speed limit repeater the location of the incident took place near a dropped kerb with a section of tactile pavement on the footpaths either side of the road, there is no indication to road users as to the imminence of what, was in reality a school crossing area and the area is also unlit; 3. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased may have been distracted by other road traffic users and in particular a school bus emerging from the school premises in the immediacy of the collision that serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of pedestrians in this location at such a time; 4. There are no other measures that exist to protect pedestrians such as: a. Railings; b. Street lighting; c. An automated zebra or other form of crossing to allow a priority to be given to pedestrians; d. A school crossing patrol officer; e. A temporary reduction in the speed limit to 20 miles per hour at the beginning and end of the school day; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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 temporary 20-mile-per-hour speed limit during school start and finish periods

Wider context from the report

“1. The location of the collision is in the immediate vicinity to the access and exit entrances to a large secondary school; 2. Whilst motorists have the benefit of advanced warning triangles indicating to road users that there is a school 100 ahead along with a speed limit repeater the location of the incident took place near a dropped kerb with a section of tactile pavement on the footpaths either side of the road, there is no indication to road users as to the imminence of what, was in reality a school crossing area and the area is also unlit; 3. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased may have been distracted by other road traffic users and in particular a school bus emerging from the school premises in the immediacy of the collision that serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of pedestrians in this location at such a time; 4. There are no other measures that exist to protect pedestrians such as: a. Railings; b. Street lighting; c. An automated zebra or other form of crossing to allow a priority to be given to pedestrians; d. A school crossing patrol officer; e. A temporary reduction in the speed limit to 20 miles per hour at the beginning and end of the school day; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations; Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads.

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 school crossing patrol officer

Wider context from the report

“1. The location of the collision is in the immediate vicinity to the access and exit entrances to a large secondary school; 2. Whilst motorists have the benefit of advanced warning triangles indicating to road users that there is a school 100 ahead along with a speed limit repeater the location of the incident took place near a dropped kerb with a section of tactile pavement on the footpaths either side of the road, there is no indication to road users as to the imminence of what, was in reality a school crossing area and the area is also unlit; 3. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased may have been distracted by other road traffic users and in particular a school bus emerging from the school premises in the immediacy of the collision that serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of pedestrians in this location at such a time; 4. There are no other measures that exist to protect pedestrians such as: a. Railings; b. Street lighting; c. An automated zebra or other form of crossing to allow a priority to be given to pedestrians; d. A school crossing patrol officer; e. A temporary reduction in the speed limit to 20 miles per hour at the beginning and end of the school day; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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 street lighting at the school crossing area

Wider context from the report

“1. The location of the collision is in the immediate vicinity to the access and exit entrances to a large secondary school; 2. Whilst motorists have the benefit of advanced warning triangles indicating to road users that there is a school 100 ahead along with a speed limit repeater the location of the incident took place near a dropped kerb with a section of tactile pavement on the footpaths either side of the road, there is no indication to road users as to the imminence of what, was in reality a school crossing area and the area is also unlit; 3. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased may have been distracted by other road traffic users and in particular a school bus emerging from the school premises in the immediacy of the collision that serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of pedestrians in this location at such a time; 4. There are no other measures that exist to protect pedestrians such as: a. Railings; b. Street lighting; c. An automated zebra or other form of crossing to allow a priority to be given to pedestrians; d. A school crossing patrol officer; e. A temporary reduction in the speed limit to 20 miles per hour at the beginning and end of the school day; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lighting; Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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

Vulnerability of pedestrians near the school access and exit during school traffic periods

Wider context from the report

“1. The location of the collision is in the immediate vicinity to the access and exit entrances to a large secondary school; 2. Whilst motorists have the benefit of advanced warning triangles indicating to road users that there is a school 100 ahead along with a speed limit repeater the location of the incident took place near a dropped kerb with a section of tactile pavement on the footpaths either side of the road, there is no indication to road users as to the imminence of what, was in reality a school crossing area and the area is also unlit; 3. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased may have been distracted by other road traffic users and in particular a school bus emerging from the school premises in the immediacy of the collision that serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of pedestrians in this location at such a time; 4. There are no other measures that exist to protect pedestrians such as: a. Railings; b. Street lighting; c. An automated zebra or other form of crossing to allow a priority to be given to pedestrians; d. A school crossing patrol officer; e. A temporary reduction in the speed limit to 20 miles per hour at the beginning and end of the school day; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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 pedestrian crossing giving pedestrians priority

Wider context from the report

“1. The location of the collision is in the immediate vicinity to the access and exit entrances to a large secondary school; 2. Whilst motorists have the benefit of advanced warning triangles indicating to road users that there is a school 100 ahead along with a speed limit repeater the location of the incident took place near a dropped kerb with a section of tactile pavement on the footpaths either side of the road, there is no indication to road users as to the imminence of what, was in reality a school crossing area and the area is also unlit; 3. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased may have been distracted by other road traffic users and in particular a school bus emerging from the school premises in the immediacy of the collision that serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of pedestrians in this location at such a time; 4. There are no other measures that exist to protect pedestrians such as: a. Railings; b. Street lighting; c. An automated zebra or other form of crossing to allow a priority to be given to pedestrians; d. A school crossing patrol officer; e. A temporary reduction in the speed limit to 20 miles per hour at the beginning and end of the school day; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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

Provide school staff to marshal pupils at the gate and hold them until it is safe to cross.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to your third point, a joint examination with the Academy of the school's vehicular access arrangements, which currently operate as a one-way system utilising the northern access and southern exit, was carried out at school exit times. For the internal operation within the school premises, of children boarding and exiting buses, this is the safest option. An option to reverse this arrangement was considered but it was agreed this would create queuing vehicles on the highway which would obscure pedestrian and vehicle visibility and, at worst, actually prevent crossing of the road.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 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

Examine the Academy’s vehicular access arrangements jointly with the school at exit times.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to your third point, a joint examination with the Academy of the school's vehicular access arrangements, which currently operate as a one-way system utilising the northern access and southern exit, was carried out at school exit times. For the internal operation within the school premises, of children boarding and exiting buses, this is the safest option. An option to reverse this arrangement was considered but it was agreed this would create queuing vehicles on the highway which would obscure pedestrian and vehicle visibility and, at worst, actually prevent crossing of the road.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 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 streetlighting at the school entrance as an authorised exceptional measure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b. The provision of Streetlighting at this location does not meet the requirements of the County Council's Streetlighting Policy. However, the school feel that this request would have the most significant benefit and the Executive Councillor has authorised its installation as an exceptional case.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 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

Improve school-entrance conspicuity by installing road markings, additional warning signs and amber flashing lights for school start and finish times.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, it is agreed that the conspicuity of the school entrance could be enhanced and I shall outline our proposed measures below.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 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

A teacher marshals pupils at the school gate, providing a safe alternative to a light-controlled crossing despite unmet eligibility criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“c. Unusually for a large academy the vast majority of pupils access this school by coach/bus. The school roll shows that only 15 children live in Leadenham and 16 children live in Welbourn and physical counts at exit time showed less than 50 pupils cross the road. As such this location does not meet the minimum criteria to provide a light controlled crossing. However, the school has now provided a teacher to effectively marshal and hold students at the school gate until it is safe to cross the road; effectively providing a safe method of crossing.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 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

A School Safety Zone is unsuitable because this secondary-school location lacks primary-school characteristics and has no recent pedestrian collision history.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to your second point, the school entrance benefits from both advance warning triangles and a 30mph speed limit. There is no School Safety Zone present in the vicinity as these are largely designed for primary schools where pupils will generally have less road safety awareness and where parking around school entrances may be an issue. These factors do not apply to this location. Further, we confirm that we have no record of any other incident involving a pedestrian at this location within the last 20 years.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 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

A temporary 20 mph limit will not be implemented because evidence of speed reduction is debated and the County Council has no such policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“e. The benefits of a temporary speed limit are a matter of debate nationally as evidence suggests such a measure may not have the effect of reducing average speeds. The County Council does not therefore have a policy of implementing temporary speed limits of 20 mph in place. However, as mentioned above it is agreed that the conspicuity of the school entrance can be enhanced. Therefore, we will carry out works this year to place improved roadmarkings including SLOW and yellow SCHOOL zig-zag markings adjacent to the entrance. We will also install additional school warning signs and finally we will provide school amber flashing lights to raise awareness at start and finish times.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 18 May 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

School staff at the pedestrian exit provide a suitable alternative because pupil numbers do not justify a School Crossing Patrol.

Verbatim wording from the response

“d. Similarly, whilst a School Crossing Patrol does not meet the necessary criteria in terms of numbers of pupils who would use that patrol, as the school have volunteered the services of their staff at the pedestrian exit this provides a suitable alternative that ameliorates the risk.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 18 May 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

The existing one-way school access system is considered safest because reversing it would obstruct visibility and prevent road crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to your third point, a joint examination with the Academy of the school's vehicular access arrangements, which currently operate as a one-way system utilising the northern access and southern exit, was carried out at school exit times. For the internal operation within the school premises, of children boarding and exiting buses, this is the safest option. An option to reverse this arrangement was considered but it was agreed this would create queuing vehicles on the highway which would obscure pedestrian and vehicle visibility and, at worst, actually prevent crossing of the road.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 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

Guardrails are not reasonably practicable because widening, utility conflicts, reduced visibility and pedestrian risks would create safety problems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. At this location the width of the footway is such that the installation of guardrail would require significant widening works and affect underground utility services. Safety concerns would also be created due to reduced highway visibility for properties opposite the school; and also the risk that pedestrians may be tempted to walk outside the barrier if the footpath was occupied by other waiting pedestrians. It is not considered to be reasonably practicable to provide guardrail taking into account the above issues.”

Source location

2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026