Lynne Pamela Lawrence · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 May 2021•Gwent

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an 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
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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. Uneven pedestrian pavement
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe walking surfaces creating trip hazards

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

    Train and accredit highway inspectors to assess public highway condition at specified competency levels.

  2. Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

    Implement asset hierarchies, inspection frequencies and repair regimes for managing highway and footway maintenance.

  3. Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

    Adopt risk-based highway service levels informed by the national code and CSSW principles, exceeding national minimum safety and maintenance intervention standards.

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

  1. Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

    The raised paving is below the intervention threshold and is not considered a risk to highway users.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

    Existing risk-based inspection and repair standards are considered sufficient, so no remedial works are proposed at this location.

    Existing 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

Uneven pedestrian pavement

Wider context from the report

“1. Condition of Pavement on At the time of her fall, Mrs Lawrence was walking along a narrow pedestrian pavement near ████████, Alma Street, Brynmawr, Newport, NP23. The video footage available to me at the inquest demonstrated that the pavement was uneven. Whilst I could not conclude that it was the unevenness of the pavement that caused Mrs Lawrence to fall, nonetheless I consider that this is a factor which could people's lives at risk in the future, especially the elderly with reduced mobility. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe walking surfaces creating trip hazards.

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

Train and accredit highway inspectors to assess public highway condition at specified competency levels.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Highway Authority deploys Highway Inspector’s to undertake a regime of inspections to monitor the condition and repair needs of the public highway, they have received and passed accredited training programmes for specific competency levels to allow them to assess the condition of the public highway.”

Source location

2021-0158-Response-from-Blaenau-Gwent-County-Borough-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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 asset hierarchies, inspection frequencies and repair regimes for managing highway and footway maintenance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Details of asset hierarchy, inspection and repair regimes are adopted by the Council and implemented. For the purpose of managing maintenance Councils allocate a hierarchy level to each road and footway to establish inspection frequencies and repair regimes. The most significant factor affecting the risk presented to users is the level of use. As no footfall data is available in many situations across the council, officer judgement is used to estimate footfall for different footways in order to apply the CSSW principles.”

Source location

2021-0158-Response-from-Blaenau-Gwent-County-Borough-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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

Adopt risk-based highway service levels informed by the national code and CSSW principles, exceeding national minimum safety and maintenance intervention standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To assist authorities in meeting their duties National Guidance is provided and the methods adopted are based upon the contents of the following “Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice (CoP), UK Roads Liaison Group, 2016”. The Code is designed to promote the adoption of an integrated asset management approach to highway infrastructure based on the establishment of local levels through risk-based assessment. The Authority have developed their own levels of service based on the above Code, along with adopting the County Surveyors”

Source location

2021-0158-Response-from-Blaenau-Gwent-County-Borough-Council-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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 raised paving is below the intervention threshold and is not considered a risk to highway users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Highway Inspections prior to the accident in July 2020 and post accident in January 2021 have not identified defects approaching this standard >25mm. A further assessment on receipt of the Regulation 28 report has been undertaken and although the footway reconstruction has raised paving <16mm (photo’s attached) they are not at a standard that the Highway Authority would intervene or consider a risk to highway user and as such there are no proposals for BGBCBC Highway Authority to take remedial works actions at this location.”

Source location

2021-0158-Response-from-Blaenau-Gwent-County-Borough-Council-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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

Existing risk-based inspection and repair standards are considered sufficient, so no remedial works are proposed at this location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Highway Inspections prior to the accident in July 2020 and post accident in January 2021 have not identified defects approaching this standard >25mm. A further assessment on receipt of the Regulation 28 report has been undertaken and although the footway reconstruction has raised paving <16mm (photo’s attached) they are not at a standard that the Highway Authority would intervene or consider a risk to highway user and as such there are no proposals for BGBCBC Highway Authority to take remedial works actions at this location.”

Source location

2021-0158-Response-from-Blaenau-Gwent-County-Borough-Council-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 18 May 2021

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