PFD report

Dolores Mary Hubbert · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Nov 2014•Sunderland

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
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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Inadequate speed restrictions before and after a junction
  2. Insufficient grass-cutting frequency allowing longer grass to obscure drivers' views
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions
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.3

  1. Action

    Commence the statutory process to reduce the A690 speed limit to 50 mph in January 2015.

    Stated by Sunderland City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  2. Action

    Undertake an assessment of possible safety measures at the A690/Durham Road, East Rainton junction during 2015.

    Stated by Sunderland City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  3. Action

    Continue reviewing speed limits across the city, prioritising principal roads including the A690.

    Stated by Sunderland City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 November 2014.

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

  1. Position

    Further traffic management intervention at the junction was not considered necessary because its accident record was comparatively good.

    Stated by Sunderland City CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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

Inadequate speed restrictions before and after a junction

Wider context from the report

“The family of Mrs Hubbert expressed concerns to me about the overall safety of the junction and in particular the speed restrictions before and after the junction as well as the policy with regard to the frequency of grass cutting as longer grass may have the potential to obscure the views of drivers. ”

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

Insufficient grass-cutting frequency allowing longer grass to obscure drivers' views

Wider context from the report

“The family of Mrs Hubbert expressed concerns to me about the overall safety of the junction and in particular the speed restrictions before and after the junction as well as the policy with regard to the frequency of grass cutting as longer grass may have the potential to obscure the views of drivers. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions.

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

Commence the statutory process to reduce the A690 speed limit to 50 mph in January 2015.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also been undertaking a review of speed limits throughout the city with priority being given to investigating those on “principal” roads. The A690 falls under this criteria and we intend to commence the statutory process to reduce the speed limit to 50mph on this section of road in January 2015. Subject to a successful statutory consultation it is expected that the speed reduction could be introduced in summer 2015.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

Undertake an assessment of possible safety measures at the A690/Durham Road, East Rainton junction during 2015.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a consequence of this regular view, the Council has already identified the nearby A690/High Lane/Stoneygate junction as a site of concern as regards safety with 11 personal injury accidents in the last 3 years. We have been a progressing a scheme of measures to address these concerns. Extensive public consultations are about to commence and a scheme will be presented to a Planning and Highways Committee for final approval early next year, with a view to implementing the scheme during the financial year 2015/16. As the next major at grade crossing point on the A690, a similar assessment of possible measures for the A690/Durham Road, East Rainton junction will be programmed to be undertaken in 2015. It is not possible to be specific as to what measures will be the most suitable for this location until the investigation and consultation has been completed.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

Continue reviewing speed limits across the city, prioritising principal roads including the A690.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also been undertaking a review of speed limits throughout the city with priority being given to investigating those on “principal” roads. The A690 falls under this criteria and we intend to commence the statutory process to reduce the speed limit to 50mph on this section of road in January 2015. Subject to a successful statutory consultation it is expected that the speed reduction could be introduced in summer 2015.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

Further traffic management intervention at the junction was not considered necessary because its accident record was comparatively good.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Council as Highway Authority, regularly assess the accident data throughout the city to determine where additional traffic management measures are needed and are appropriate. The safety record at this junction was regarded as good, compared to other locations in the city. Priority is given to implementing measures that help reduce the number and severity of personal injury accidents, improve child pedestrian safety at locations that show a significant accident history and which are in line with the Council’s overall transport strategy. With the junction having previously had a comparatively good safety record, intervention has not been considered necessary.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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 established spring and autumn maintenance closure programme was considered appropriate for the A690 location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regards to maintenance activity on the A690, the Council's approach over the years for all principal high speed roads has been to implement a programme of Spring and Autumn closures to facilitate work such as servicing of road gullies, grass cutting, street cleansing, safety barrier and lighting repairs . This year the lane closures on this section of the A690 took place on 27th/28th March and 22nd/23rd September. This schedule was in line with the Council’s intended programme set at the start of the year and is considered to be appropriate to the location in question.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

    Progress safety-measures scheme at the A690/High Lane/Stoneygate junction through public consultation and Planning and Highways Committee approval.

    Stated by Sunderland City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 November 2014.

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

Progress safety-measures scheme at the A690/High Lane/Stoneygate junction through public consultation and Planning and Highways Committee approval.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a consequence of this regular view, the Council has already identified the nearby A690/High Lane/Stoneygate junction as a site of concern as regards safety with 11 personal injury accidents in the last 3 years. We have been a progressing a scheme of measures to address these concerns. Extensive public consultations are about to commence and a scheme will be presented to a Planning and Highways Committee for final approval early next year, with a view to implementing the scheme during the financial year 2015/16. As the next major at grade crossing point on the A690, a similar assessment of possible measures for the A690/Durham Road, East Rainton junction will be programmed to be undertaken in 2015. It is not possible to be specific as to what measures will be the most suitable for this location until the investigation and consultation has been completed.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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