PFD report

George Hedley Punton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Jul 2016•Wiltshire and Swindon

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
1

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 raised1

  1. Absence of pedestrian footways on the village route to the children’s playground
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic
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

    Undertake an assessment for a 20mph speed limit at Lockeridge.

    Stated by Wiltshire CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 July 2016.
  2. Action

    Implement a 20mph speed limit around Lockeridge’s playground and recreation ground, with appropriate warning signs, by the end of 2016.

    Stated by Wiltshire CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 July 2016.

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

Absence of pedestrian footways on the village route to the children’s playground

Wider context from the report

“During the course of hearing evidence I heard from ████████ who whilst not making any recommendations directly relating to the exact circumstances of George’s death did indirectly highlight a concern relative to a nearby children’s playground, the access to which from the village, which included the route George was on at the time highlighted the fact not unsurprisingly given the location that there were no pedestrian pavements. I think the simplest thing is for me to enclose with this report a copy of ████████ report which highlights the location of the playground in question which lies to the north of the collision point involving George which took place at OS grid reference 148677. The similarity with the circumstances of George’s death relate to the fact that George at the time was struck by the Zafira whilst walking on the highway due to the absence of any pavements. My initial reaction when reading ████████ was that there could be many scenarios whereby villages due to their history in relation to highways may not be wide enough to accommodate pedestrian pavements but the location here of the playground and also regards its safe access by villagers including children does cause me concern. Whilst it is fair to say there have been no incidents in the previous four years I am sufficiently concerned so as to support ████████ recommendation that motorists and other highway users ought to be alerted to the fact that there are no footways and that pedestrians are likely to be walking at the side of the road and as such I am satisfied that there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

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

Undertake an assessment for a 20mph speed limit at Lockeridge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An assessment for a 20mph speed limit at Lockeridge has recently been undertaken, this assessment has recommended the implementation of a 20mph limit, the extents of which will include the roads around the playground / recreation ground area discussed in the Police Report. The implementation of the 20mph limit is due to be completed by the end of 2016 and will include the provision of the suggested warning signs that are considered appropriate for the location.”

Source location

2016-0250-Response-by-Wiltshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 1 July 2016

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 a 20mph speed limit around Lockeridge’s playground and recreation ground, with appropriate warning signs, by the end of 2016.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An assessment for a 20mph speed limit at Lockeridge has recently been undertaken, this assessment has recommended the implementation of a 20mph limit, the extents of which will include the roads around the playground / recreation ground area discussed in the Police Report. The implementation of the 20mph limit is due to be completed by the end of 2016 and will include the provision of the suggested warning signs that are considered appropriate for the location.”

Source location

2016-0250-Response-by-Wiltshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 1 July 2016

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