Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2017

Jack Braniff

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2017-0183, written 5 Jun 2017. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report5 Jun 2017
Reference2017-0183
DeceasedJack Braniff
CoronerCatherine McKenna
Coroner areaManchester North
CategoryRoad (Highways Safety) related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28: REPORT  TO PREVENT FUTURE  DEATHS (1)

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT  FUTURE DEATHS

THIS REPORT  IS BEING  SENT  TO:

1. Highways  England, Piccadilly  Gate, Store Street, Manchester,  M1 2WD
2. Head of Highway Maintenance,  Oldham Council, Oldham,  OL1 1UT

CORONER

I am Catherine McKenna,  Assistant Coroner  for the Coroner  area of Manchester North

CORONER'S  LEGAL POWERS
I make this report  under paragraph  7, Schedule 5, of the Coroner's  and Justice  Act 2009 and
Regulations  28 and 29 of the Coroners  (lnvestigations)  Regulations  2013

1

2

3

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST

On the 11 November  2016,  I commenced an investigation  into the death of Jack  Edward Braniff
then aged 19. The investigation  concluded at the end of the inquest on 5 May 2017. The
conclusion  of the inquest  was Road Traffic Collision,  the medical  cause of death being  multiple
skull fractures and intracerebral haemorrhage.

4

CIRCUMSTANCES  OF DEATH

At approximately  01:00 hours on 5 November  2016,  Jack  Braniff stepped  from the pavement into
the path of an oncoming car on Middleton  Road in Chadderton, Oldham. An illuminated
advertising board  positioned close to the kerb  obstructed  Jack's  view of the road and the car
driver's  view of the pavement.  Visibility issues for both Jack  and the car driver  were compounded
by the shadows cast by overhanging  tree canopies against the illumination of the advertising board
and a nearby bus shelter.  Jack was taken  to the Royal Oldham Hospital and  died at 02:10  hours
on 5 November  2016 as a result  of the injury  he sustained  upon impact  with the car.

5

CORONER'S CONCERNS
During  the course of the inquest  the evidence  revealed matters  giving rise to concern. ln my
opinion there is a risk  that future deaths  will occur  unless action  is taken. ln the circumstances  it is
my statutory  duty to report  to you.

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows:-

1. The evidence was  that the size and  position  of the illuminated  advertising  board  at the site
of the collision obstructs pedestrians'  view of the road and drivers' view of pedestrians.  The
concern is to ensure that road safety is fully  considered  when  decisions  are made about  the
size,  position and location  of illuminated advertising  boards on public highways.

2. The overhanging  tree canopies at the site of the collision compounded  the visibility issues
which led to this death. The evidence suggested  that there is a nexus between  a reduction
in the tree lopping  in the Greater Manchestet  area and an increase in road traffic collisions.
The concern  is that if this continues, it may lead to further  fatalities.

 6

ACTION SHOULD BE  TAKEN

ln my opinion action should  be taken to prevent future  deaths and I believe each of you
respectively have  the power to take such  action.

7

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under a duty to respond to this report  within 56 days of the date of this report,  namely 31
Juty 2017.  l, the Assistant Coroner, may extend  the period.

Your response nrust contain  details  of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting  out the
limatahla 
tll  I 19tqvlg 

r,r¡hrr  nn  anfinn 

ì/^r  r mr rcf  avnlain 
Jvu 

l.ìf}ranrrica 
tvl  Yrrev 
v(l 

fnr  a¡{inn 
qvtlvl 
tvl 

iq  nrnnnqcd

I I rver 

vr\Ì/¡v

l. 

ö

ULrl'lEÐ  anq l- UE L¡t,A I lLtN

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following  lnterested  Persons
namely:-
. 
r 

I am also under a duty to send  the Chief  Coroner  a copy of your response.

The Chief Coroner  may publish either or both in a complete or redacted  or summary  [rom. He lrtay
send  a copy  of this report  to any person  who he believes may find it useful  or of illterest.  You may
make representations  to me the coroner  at the time of your response,  about  the release  or the
publication  of your response by the Chief  Coroner.

Date:

June 201 7

9

Signed:

Responses

1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Unity Partnership (PDF)
____________________
Unitypartnersh ip
Highways and Engineering
Coroner’s Officer Traffic Section, Floor 1
HM Coroners’ Court Henshaw House, Cheapside
Phoenix Centre Oldham OL1 1NY
LC/p Stephen Shaw Way
Heywood Switchboard: 0161 770 3000
OL1O1LR Fax: 0161 7703411
28 July 2017 Your Ref:
Our Ref: GDS /710
Dear Ms Turner
Re: REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS:
Oldham Council’s Responses to the Coroner’s concerns:
Thank you for your recent communication with regards to Regulation 28 and the concerns you
have raised following the fatal Road Traffic Collision on the A669 Middleton Road, Chadderton
Oldham. Please be assured that Oldham Council takes Road Safety very seriously and is
constantly committed to reducing the number of people killed or injured on its highways.
Since the start of the new millennium we have seen a steady improvement in Road Safety
across the Borough for many categories of road user. This trend culminated in 2016 with the
annual number of Road Traffic Collisions (RTC’s) in Oldham falling to 229 which is an all-time
low.
I am encouraged to point out that within this data there is evidence of significant reductions in
the number of pedestrians injured on roads during the hours of darkness where there is an
operational street lighting system. This is demonstrated in our recent Road Safety figures as
summarised in the table below:
Numberof Pedestrian
lotal Number
Year ‘Collisions in Oldham along
RTC’s
roadswith streetlighting
2000 886 70
2005 717 51
2010 403 33
2015 273 15
It is also worth noting that both the road markings and carriageway were in excellent condition
at the time of the collision.
With regards to your specific concerns I have responded to each one in turn, overleaf:
www.unitypartnership.com Proudtobe
partofthe
Otdhamteam
Registered n EnglandatTempafordHall,Sandy, 5edfordshr, SG192BD
RegisteredCo. 5916336
C-
Concern 1
The evidence was that the size andposition ofthe illuminatedadvertising boardatthe
site ofthe collision obstructspedestrians’ view oftheroadanddrivers’ viewof
pedestrians. The concern is to ensure that roadsafetyis fully considered when
decisions are madeabout the size, position and location ofilluminatedadvertising
boards on public highways.
The placement of advertising on the highway is controlled by “The Town and
Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007
Under the current Planning process, an Application for Advertisement Consent
is required by Oldham to display a freestanding sign of the type under discussion.
O)dham considers any such application against its visual appearance, impact on
amenity and any detrimental influence it may have on highway (road) safety.
With regard to the impact of the particular advertising sign on Middleton Road, its
location does not restrictvisibility at the nearby junction of Mime Street, and is set
far enough back from the kerb edge to allow vehicles to travel along Middleton
Road safely. There are existing controlled pedestrian crossings nearby and I do not
consider that the siting of the sign would adversely impact on pedestrians using
these crossings
Incidentally, the existing sign is set back 500mm from the kerb edge to provide what
is termed the “dynamic envelope” designed such that it is unlikely to be struck by
wing mirrors or overhanging vehicles; consequently, this space also allows some
intervisibility between pedestrians and drivers should a decision be made to cross
at this point.
To restrict the level of visual contrast that occurs when the sign is illuminated whilst
empty, under our current powers it would be impossible to control when an advert
was removed and difficult to monitor whether the empty sign was illuminated or not.
Planning conditions are not generally attached to control the continued illumination
because of the difficulties that would be encountered in trying to entorce this.
However, in light of yourfindings, I feel it would be prudent for Qldham to attach a
Condition to future applications that restricts illumination of the units when they are
empty.
De’ivered by Unity Partnershipon behaif of Odham Counci;
Concern 2
The overhanging tree canopies at the site ofthe collision compounded the visibility
issues which led to his death. The evidence suggestedthat there is a nexus between a
reduction in the tree loppingin the GreaterManchesterarea andan increase in road
traffic collisions. The concern Is thatifthis continues, it mayleadto furtherfatalities.
Oldham Council currently manages its Street Lighting network under a PR Contract
with the neighbouring Borough of Rochdale in what is termed the Community
Lighting Partnership (CLP). Our Contract is with the CLP where the appointed Sub
Contractor E-on carries out all the day to day operations to align with the project’s
Output Specification.
The Street lighting on the A669 Middleton Road (from itsjunction with A663
Broadway to 86048 Featherstall Road has previously been assessed in relation to
its lighting classification and associated compliance with British Standard 5489 -1:
2003. The conflict areas, including road junctions, the signalised pedestrian
crossings near Melbourne Street and the Zebra crossing near to Victoria Street
were all been included in the assessment.
In June 2017 a visual site survey was also carried out to check the siting of street
lighting columns in relation to other Street furniture and assets including trees. This
operation identified that the lantern on column 47 was one that may suffer from
excessive tree canopy foliage growth during the spring and summer months of the
year. A copy of this Report is attached.
As part of the PFI agreement contract described above, the detrimental effect that
overgrown tree canopies have on lanterns is monitored through a combination of
routine maintenance and night time inspection regimes. Where trimming and
pruning is required the work is programmed to be carried out as soon as reasonably
practicable.
In light of the concerns that you have raised the Council will ensure the tree pruning
continues as efficiently as possible and is committed to reviewing the
program
process and will implement practical improvements where appropriate.
However, the recent survey has confirmed that the lighting level along this section
of the A669 Middleton Road is compliant with the British Standard. It is worth noting
that the levels achieve ME 2 classification which is in fact a higherstandard than is
required for a road of this category; on roads such this, a lighting classification of
ME 3 would be acceptable. Furthermore, by positioning the street lighting columns
at the main crossing points we are able provide good negative contrast at key
locations where conflicts occur.
I hope that the above information has helped to address the two concerns that you have raised.
Delivered by Unity Partnership on behalfofOldham Council
C
Should you have any queries about this letter, the matter is being dealt with by my colleague
, who may be contacted on
Yours sincerely
Head of Highways and Engineering
Unity partnership
Direct line: 0161 770 3000
Doc Ret:
Devered by Unity Partnershp on behalf of Oldham Counci’

Related reports

Other reports by Catherine McKenna

See all →

More reports categorised “Road (Highways Safety) related deaths”

See all →

Track Road (Highways Safety) related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Road (Highways Safety) related deaths, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.