The residents dispute the concern regarding the low wall, stating they have no issue with it and that the deceased was inebriated. They conditionally offer to contribute to a 'low wall' sign if all residents participate and to install a PIR light on their property. (AI summary)
Peter Moorby
A low, unlit wall provides inadequate protection from an 8-10 foot drop into a dangerous river, creating a significant risk of future accidental deaths.
Coroner's concerns
View full coroner's concerns
Responses
The residents dispute the necessity of further action, contending the death was an isolated incident due to the individual's intoxication, and that existing solar and motion sensor lights are adequate. They argue that modifications to the river wall would spoil the environment and that the private road is not a public thoroughfare, making interventions inappropriate. (AI summary)
View full response
1. The incident was a single unfortunate accident, rather than the latest in a series of deaths. The gentleman was highly intoxicated and had been seen in the village and wandering on the road on several occasions during that afternoon and evening in a very inebriated state. We have lived in this village for over thirty years and have never experienced anyone with a problem with the river.
2. One simply cannot fall over the wall and into the river. The route from the house he was leaving to the main road would have led him well away to the right of the wall. He must have deliberately chosen to veer from the natural route and sit on the wall. Most of the stretch between the main road and the spot where he fell has a grassy bank or a bank with undergrowth and shrubs. To raise the level of the wall or indeed to erect any kind of barrier would completely spoil the enjoyment of the wildlife and ambiance of the setting.
3. The wall is adjacent to an unadopted road. This is not a narrow lane (4metres), but a road wide enough to take refuse vans, delivery vans etc.
4. The road is not a public thoroughfare. It is a private road for the use of all the residents of the lower part of Millstream Court. It is a cul de sac.
5. There are several solar lights and motion sensors lights along the unadopted road, so it is not in total darkness. It would be inappropriate and costly to install street lighting and would be harmful to the “Dark Sky ethos” and the local observance of the wildlife.
We, and other residents, do not feel any further action is necessary and, whilst we note your recommendations, we feel most strongly we should not have to bear any cost and considerable inconvenience and the diminishment of our enjoyment of our environment through the complete lack of judgement of one drunken individual.
Cumbria County Council commits to working with residents of the private street to reduce risk from the river wall. They plan to meet residents by November 2022 to agree on a way forward by January 2023, or they will take appropriate enforcement action. (AI summary)
View full response
Peter John Moorby Ref 2443416- Regulation 28 Report Cumbria County Council (“The Council”) acknowledges receipt of the Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths in this matter and provides this response as Street Authority under the Highways Act 1980. The Council expresses its sorrow for Peter Moorby’s death and offers its condolences to Mr Moorby’s family and friends. The Council acknowledges its locus as Street Authority in considering action which may be required to prevent future fatalities at Millstream Court, a private unadopted street in Cark-in- Cartmel, South Cumbria. The Council has considered the Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths and notes that as the wall is on a private street, that primary responsibility for action lies with the owners of the properties fronting the street. The Council has considered the responses of the residents,
and notes that has not yet provided a response. The Council notes that the residents do not believe any action is necessary to safeguard pedestrian and vehicular traffic and that they object to any increase in the height of the wall on grounds of amenity. The Council commits to fulfil its duty as a Street Authority under the Highways Act and will work with the residents to support them to take action to reduce the risk and likelihood of future accidents from the wall. Serving the people of Cumbria cumbria.gov.uk
The Council aims to meet with residents not later than the end of November 2022 to try to reach agreement on a way forward not later than the end of January 2023. Failing that, the Council will take the appropriate enforcement action, with a view to completion of the necessary works as soon as possible thereafter.
The residents dispute the need for action, stating the death was a 'freak accident' due to the individual's intoxication and that no previous accidents have occurred at the river wall. They believe existing solar and electric lights are sufficient and object to any increase in the wall's height for amenity reasons. (AI summary)
View full response
Subject: Case ref. 2443516 Death of Peter John Moorby. To The Coroner; We are answering your request re prevention of further deaths.
1. We feel this death was a freak accident.
2. We have lived here for 20 years and there have been NO accidents involving the river wall. In fact our neighbours say none have ever occurred in the last 30 years.
3. The part of the wall in question has no embankment, but is a straight fall on to rocks when the river is low. Most of rest of wall up to main road has a grassy or bushy bank.
4. The road is wide. Refuse trucks, removal vans, large delivery vans all use the road .There is no reason for people to walk into the wall.
5. Mr Moorby was seen earlier in the afternoon in question, walking unsteadily with a beer in his hand in the small park opposite the accident site. He was seen shortly after that on Cark Bridge leaning on the bridge wall, unsteady on his feet.
6. It is unfortunate that he was not accompanied or safe travel arranged when he left his friend's house later that evening.
7.The road is a cul de sac. It is NOT a thoroughfare. Residents, their family and delivery people use the road. There are a limited amount of people who use it.
8. Regarding our part of the wall, we have solar lights in summer to light up our short drive and road in front of the house. We have an electric light to use in winter.
9.We moved to our house on our retirement 20 years ago. We chose this house because it is a quiet location. We really enjoy watching the wildlife on the river. Kingfishers, Dippers, Wagtails, Herons, Eels and many ducks give us much pleasure. We would not have moved here if there had been a high wall facing our house. I am 76 and my husband is 81. We hope you find the above information useful , please contact us if you require any further information.
Report sections
Investigation and inquest
The conclusion of the inquest was: Accidental Death.
Circumstances of the death
Action should be taken
AND
I understand that maintenance of the access road is shared equally between those properties abutting the access road. As the wall appears to retain the road, I believe that the low wall forms part of the access road. This Notice is therefore served on those properties adjoining the access road:
. The Land Registry details indicate they are the owner of a property adjacent to the access road.
Land Registry details indicate he is the owner of land adjacent to the access road.
The Land Registry details indicate they are the owner of a property adjacent to the access road.
. The Land Registry details indicate they are the owner of a property adjacent to the access road.
AND
Cumbria County Council of Cumbria House, 117 Botchergate, Carlisle, CA1 1RD as Street Works Authority under the Highways Act 1980.
This Report has been delayed due to the difficulties in ascertaining who is responsible for the access road / low wall.
Similar PFD reports
Related inquiry recommendations
Report details
- Reference
- 2022-0194
- Coroner
- Kirsty Gomersal
- Coroner area
- Cumbria
Responses identified
Sent to
- Cumbria County Council