PFD report

Spencer Lloyd Hurst · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Aug 2017•Black Country

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

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 raised2

  1. Lack of fencing or other appropriate measures to mitigate lake swimming risks
  2. Lack of adequate warning notices about the risks of swimming in the lake
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate warnings about location-specific hazards at public waterside 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

    Implement six-monthly inspections of the signage and assess whether further safety action is required.

    Stated by Parkhill Estates LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 November 2017.
  2. Action

    Install a secured memorial and four entrance signs warning that swimming in open water is dangerous.

    Stated by Parkhill Estates LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 November 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Signage and fencing are considered ineffective for preventing or deterring swimmers at the Mere, based on risk assessment and previous experience.

    Stated by Parkhill Estates LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 fencing or other appropriate measures to mitigate lake swimming risks

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the investigation and pre-inquest hearing review that another young male had died in very similar circumstances at the same location on the 11 June 2007. 2. Despite this being the second death, evidence emerged that there have been no adequate notices displayed to warn of the risks of swimming in the lake and no evidence of any fencing or appropriate measures taken to mitigate the risks. ”

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 adequate warning notices about the risks of swimming in the lake

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence emerged during the investigation and pre-inquest hearing review that another young male had died in very similar circumstances at the same location on the 11 June 2007. 2. Despite this being the second death, evidence emerged that there have been no adequate notices displayed to warn of the risks of swimming in the lake and no evidence of any fencing or appropriate measures taken to mitigate the risks. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate warnings about location-specific hazards at public waterside locations.

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

Implement six-monthly inspections of the signage and assess whether further safety action is required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Once the signage is established on site, Parkhill will organise and implement a 6 monthly inspection regime of the signage. Following each inspection the Company will conduct an assessment to decide if any further actions are required in respect of the signage at Ryders Hill Mere.”

Source location

2017-0275-Response-by-Parkhill-Estates-Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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 a secured memorial and four entrance signs warning that swimming in open water is dangerous.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To try an overcome the issues and difficulties experienced by Parkhill and WMBC with regards to signage at the Mere being removed or destroyed, Parkhill has, since the Inquest, engaged in discussion with the family of Spencer Hurst regarding the possibility of erecting signage which also incorporates a memorial to Spencer. The hope is that a memorial may act as a deterrent to other young persons who might go to the Mere and would be less likely than ordinary signage to be vandalised or removed. Spencer’s mother has kindly indicated that she would be agreeable to a memorial being implemented as a control measure at the Mere in the hope that it may deter swimmers.”

Source location

2017-0275-Response-by-Parkhill-Estates-Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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

Signage and fencing are considered ineffective for preventing or deterring swimmers at the Mere, based on risk assessment and previous experience.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Risk assessment at the design stage suggested that signage and fencing would be ineffective to prevent or deter swimmers in the Mere and the grading of the Mere edges was therefore”

Source location

2017-0275-Response-by-Parkhill-Estates-Limited
Page 1 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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

    Consult WMBC on measures to deter unsafe swimming and obtain relevant safety advice.

    Stated by Parkhill Estates LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 November 2017.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    A permanent site presence cannot be secured because previous attempts were rejected by the local authority’s Planning Department.

    Stated by Parkhill Estates LimitedUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Consult WMBC on measures to deter unsafe swimming and obtain relevant safety advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Parkhill takes matters of safety very seriously and the company acted immediately upon receipt of the Reg 28 Report from the Coroner’s office.”

Source location

2017-0275-Response-by-Parkhill-Estates-Limited
Page 2 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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 permanent site presence cannot be secured because previous attempts were rejected by the local authority’s Planning Department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Previous attempts by Parkhill to secure a permanent presence on the land have been rejected by the Planning Department of WMBC.”

Source location

2017-0275-Response-by-Parkhill-Estates-Limited
Page 2 · response
Published 25 November 2017

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