PFD report

James Hall · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 May 2016•Suffolk

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

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 raised2

  1. Failure to provide handholds or footholds for recovery from the bridge wall
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges
  2. Failure to provide a barrier that prevents or deters climbing onto the bridge wall
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridgesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or 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.1

  1. Action

    Commission and complete a stakeholder-informed review of preventative measures for Orwell Bridge.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 May 2016.

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

  1. Position

    Toe holds will not be installed because they could encourage climbing, create workforce safety risks, and have unproven effectiveness.

    Stated by National HighwaysUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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

Failure to provide handholds or footholds for recovery from the bridge wall

Wider context from the report

“The Orwell Bridge is a well known very high structure in Suffolk that can be easily accessed on foot. There are a number of locations that provide parking within close walking distance. Once on the bridge there is a pedestrian walkway on both sides which allows full access to its entire length. A concrete wall runs the length of the bridge on the river side of each walk way. A vehicle crash barrier separates each walkway from the carriageway. The bridge wall is between waist and low chest height for an adult and is approximately 30-40 cm in width. As such it is easy to straddle for the majority of reasonable fit adults or young persons. This relatively low concrete wall is the only barrier preventing a fall from the bridge. There is nothing in place that would make it either physically difficult or provide a deterrent against climbing onto the bridge wall. Further, the river side of the bridge walls are bare vertical concrete. As such should someone who had straddled the wall subsequently slip, there is nothing on the structure that would provide a hand or foothold allowing them the opportunity to climb back onto the bridge. This is by no means an isolated incident and I am aware that further inquests are to be held shortly in relation to other deaths resulting from falls from Orwell Bridge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges.

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 a barrier that prevents or deters climbing onto the bridge wall

Wider context from the report

“The Orwell Bridge is a well known very high structure in Suffolk that can be easily accessed on foot. There are a number of locations that provide parking within close walking distance. Once on the bridge there is a pedestrian walkway on both sides which allows full access to its entire length. A concrete wall runs the length of the bridge on the river side of each walk way. A vehicle crash barrier separates each walkway from the carriageway. The bridge wall is between waist and low chest height for an adult and is approximately 30-40 cm in width. As such it is easy to straddle for the majority of reasonable fit adults or young persons. This relatively low concrete wall is the only barrier preventing a fall from the bridge. There is nothing in place that would make it either physically difficult or provide a deterrent against climbing onto the bridge wall. Further, the river side of the bridge walls are bare vertical concrete. As such should someone who had straddled the wall subsequently slip, there is nothing on the structure that would provide a hand or foothold allowing them the opportunity to climb back onto the bridge. This is by no means an isolated incident and I am aware that further inquests are to be held shortly in relation to other deaths resulting from falls from Orwell Bridge. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges; Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

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

Commission and complete a stakeholder-informed review of preventative measures for Orwell Bridge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Orwell Bridge opened to traffic in 1982. Recent years have seen a number of suicides and attempted suicides at the location. This prompted Highways England to commission a review possible measures that could be considered to reduce the likelihood of such tragic events in future. The review completed in March 2015 was carried out in consultation with a range of stakeholders. It identified a range of preventative measures taken in and around similar structures and assessed their likely effectiveness on the Orwell Bridge. The report also considered the psychological, socio and economic aspects of incidents.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 2016

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

Toe holds will not be installed because they could encourage climbing, create workforce safety risks, and have unproven effectiveness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The installation of toe holds on the outer face of the bridge would create an extended climbing face that could encourage unauthorised access. Their installation would also present a significant health and safety risk to the workforce. We are not aware of the use of such toe holds on the outward facing side of similar structures and therefore their effectiveness in preventing such incidents is unproven. In light of this and the other factors outlined above, we are not intending to take further action in this respect.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 2016

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

Additional solid parapets or panels will not be installed because their weight and wind effects could significantly compromise bridge stability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The 2015 review identified that the installation of physical barriers were likely to be one of the most effective means to deter suicides. The parapets fully comply with height requirements designed to prevent pedestrians accidentally falling from the structure. In relation to Orwell Bridge, the review concluded that the use of additional barriers such as solid parapets or panels would add considerable weight to such a long span structure. The addition of such weight when combined with effects of high winds would have a significant impact on the stability of the structure.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 2016

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.5

  1. 1

    Review the effectiveness of the telephones at both bridge ends.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 May 2016.
  2. 2

    Work alongside other agencies to support a multi-agency suicide-prevention approach.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 May 2016.
  3. 3

    Install telephones at both bridge ends to provide distressed individuals access to Samaritans counselling and emotional support.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 May 2016.
  4. 4

    Install closed-circuit television cameras covering almost the entire bridge for police monitoring of unusual activity.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 May 2016.
  5. 5

    Consult stakeholders and other parties about bridge access and consider further preventative measures.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 May 2016.

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

  1. 1

    Catching nets will not be installed because installation and maintenance create safety risks and obstruct bridge inspection and maintenance.

    Stated by National HighwaysUnable 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

Review the effectiveness of the telephones at both bridge ends.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are currently reviewing the effectiveness of the telephones located at either end of the bridge. We will implement any changes at the earliest opportunity.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 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

Work alongside other agencies to support a multi-agency suicide-prevention approach.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no doubt that suicide prevention is a complex and challenging matter. We at Highways England are committed to working alongside others in order to support the multi-agency approach that is required to prevent such tragedies from occurring.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 3 · response
Published 12 May 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

Install telephones at both bridge ends to provide distressed individuals access to Samaritans counselling and emotional support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have taken a number of measures to mitigate such challenges including the installation of telephones at each end of the bridge. The phones enable distressed individuals to access immediate counselling and emotional support through contact with the Samaritans. We have also installed closed circuit TV cameras covering almost the entire length of bridge. These cameras are accessed by the Police to monitor unusual activity or behaviour.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 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

Install closed-circuit television cameras covering almost the entire bridge for police monitoring of unusual activity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have taken a number of measures to mitigate such challenges including the installation of telephones at each end of the bridge. The phones enable distressed individuals to access immediate counselling and emotional support through contact with the Samaritans. We have also installed closed circuit TV cameras covering almost the entire length of bridge. These cameras are accessed by the Police to monitor unusual activity or behaviour.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 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

Consult stakeholders and other parties about bridge access and consider further preventative measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will now consult with stakeholders and other parties regarding access to the bridge to consider what further preventative measures could be taken.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 2016

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

Catching nets will not be installed because installation and maintenance create safety risks and obstruct bridge inspection and maintenance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The review also looked at the possible use of catching nets. Notwithstanding the safety risks of installing and maintaining such nets, the presence of such equipment would hinder effective inspection and maintenance of the structure itself.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 12 May 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