PFD report

Andrew William Telford Coates and Polly Sarah Connor · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Jan 2016•Cumbria

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
5

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

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 raised5

  1. Failure to specify the type of firework or explosive authorised for storage
  2. Failure to prevent combustible and incompatible material and equipment from the firework-store access route
  3. Failure to designate a specific licensed explosives-storage site
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

    Audit large Cumbrian firework stores and associated licences, correcting the identified quantity and separation-distance issue.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 January 2016.
  2. Action

    Train all operational Trading Standards officers and fireworks administrators on explosive-regulation requirements, including firework storage and construction standards.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 January 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

Failure to specify the type of firework or explosive authorised for storage

Wider context from the report

“The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. ”

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

Failure to prevent combustible and incompatible material and equipment from the firework-store access route

Wider context from the report

“The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. ”

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

Failure to designate a specific licensed explosives-storage site

Wider context from the report

“The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. ”

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

Inadequate inspection records for the explosives store

Wider context from the report

“The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. ”

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

Unsuitable structure for a firework store

Wider context from the report

“The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. The Fireworks Store at Larch Cottage was, in 2008, licenced under the terms of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005. The premises had been subject to a Registration since 2004. It is questionable as to whether what amounted to a wooden shed comprised within a vehicle garage was a suitable structure for a firework store, particularly one licenced for 1000 kg. Evidence was given that the store contained a large amount of other material some of it combustible and access could only be made to the store via an adjoining compartment containing two petrol driven machines. It seemed that this state of affairs had obtained for a number of years, notwithstanding apparently compliant inspections. In addition the licence granted was deficient in that it effectively licenced the entire property instead of designating a specific site. The licence did not specify the type of firework or explosive to be stored. The effect was to give authority to store explosives of any type up to a net explosive quantity of 1000 kg. The records of inspections were sketchy. The construction and none firework content of the store at the very least exacerbated the ensuing fire. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Audit large Cumbrian firework stores and associated licences, correcting the identified quantity and separation-distance issue.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Externally validate the large firework stores in Cumbria, so that expert opinion on the construction, suitability and compliance with the regulations could be sought.”

Source location

2016-0025-Response-by-Cumbria-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 28 January 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

Train all operational Trading Standards officers and fireworks administrators on explosive-regulation requirements, including firework storage and construction standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“for the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and is a Fellow of the Association for Petroleum and Explosive Administration with over 25 years experience. I can confirm that the following actions have been undertaken to address your concerns:”

Source location

2016-0025-Response-by-Cumbria-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 January 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.1

  1. 1

    Review fireworks quality-assurance procedures and work instructions, incorporating identified amendments into Council procedures and practices.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 January 2016.

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 fireworks quality-assurance procedures and work instructions, incorporating identified amendments into Council procedures and practices.

Verbatim wording from the response

“for the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and is a Fellow of the Association for Petroleum and Explosive Administration with over 25 years experience. I can confirm that the following actions have been undertaken to address your concerns:”

Source location

2016-0025-Response-by-Cumbria-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 28 January 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