Michael Holmes
PFD Report
Partially Responded
Ref: 2023-0023Deceased
3 of 5 responded · Over 2 years old
Sent To
Response Status
Responses
3 of 5
56-Day Deadline
31 Mar 2023
Over 2 years old — no identified published response
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Coroner’s Concerns
1. Considerations regarding the field where the fatality occurred.
1.1. In an incident on 29 September 2020 Mr Holmes died after being trampled by cattle. His wife sustained major spinal and other injuries. It was a catastrophe for their family. The couple were walking on a public footpath which ran through the middle of a large field. It occurred as they were on a lunchtime walk at a time when they were working from home due to the Covid pandemic.
1.2. Statistics from the Health & Safety Executive (‘HSE’) indicate that on average 6 people have died each year from injuries sustained in cattle trampling incidents. 11 people died in 2020, one of whom was Mr Holmes. Such incidents are avoidable if walkers and cattle are separated. In my judgment, this unacceptable situation necessitates a review of the arrangements in which walkers are brought into contact with cows and their calves, by virtue of rights of way.
1.3. The field in which the incident occurred (the ‘incident field’) had been used to graze cattle for over 50 years. The public footpath had existed since the National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act 1949 recorded its existence. The logic for the precise path through the incident field has been lost in the mists of time.
1.4. Following the fatal incident, the farmer made a formal application dated 12 January 2021, to divert the public footpath to the edge of the incident field and erect a suitable fence, so as to create a safe corridor which separates walkers from the cattle (the ‘application’). All the witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest endorsed the wisdom of the application. One described it as “essential.”
1.5. As objections have been lodged to the application, the matter must be resolved by way of a public enquiry. The Secretary of State is asked to ensure the decision maker in such a process is aware of the unanimous views expressed in the course of the inquest. The application may well eliminate altogether the risk identified in the incident field.
2. The general position in relation to dogs on Rights of Way
2.1. HSE Information sheet No 17EW (rev1) published 05/19 states the two most common factors in trampling incidents are cows with calves and walkers with dogs. Mr & Mrs Holmes had two dogs on leads at the time. The inquest heard evidence about four previous incidents in the incident field, three of which involved walkers accompanied by dogs. There appears to be a strong correlation between trampling incidents and walkers with dogs.
2.2. The conclusion to be drawn is that cows with calves and dogs do not mix well, particularly when the calves are young.
2.3. Evidence was given at the inquest to the effect that dogs are regarded as a ‘usual accompaniment’ and are thus entitled to be brought onto a Right of Way. This proposition lacks clarity. There is also uncertainty as to whether dogs are required to be on a lead when on a public footpath.
2.4. Consideration should be given in the HSE Information Sheet to a clarification of the legal position of dogs brought onto rights of way where it is foreseeable they will interact with cows and their young calves.
3. The power to restrict dogs on public footpaths, at certain times.
3.1. It is difficult to predict whether a particular cow will react aggressively to the presence of a dog in a field. It was suggested during the inquest, the risk of such a reaction is highest in the months after the birth of a calf.
3.2. To neutralise this risk, consideration should be given to empowering Local Authority Footpath officers (on an application made by a farmer in relation to an identified field), to prohibit dogs being taken onto the field for a specified period. In short, a temporary prohibition order. The rationale for a temporary expedient of this nature is the imperative to protect the safety of the public, when set against the relatively brief interference with any right a walker may have to be accompanied by a dog.
3.3. An alternative approach would be to authorise landowners to post notices at the entrance to particular fields, alerting walkers to the presence of cows with young calves and advising them not to bring dogs into the field (whether on a lead or not) between specified dates. The objective of preventing harm may not, however, be achieved if walkers ignore the advice or the suggested signs are vandalised. 3.4 It is acknowledged that statutory change would be required to create powers of this nature. The Secretary of State will doubtless reflect upon the balance to be struck between the imperative of protecting the safety of the public and the relatively brief interference this would impose on the right of walkers to bring their dog into any field affected. It should also be borne in mind that the people whose safety is currently jeopardised under existing arrangements are the dog walkers themselves.
4. The role of public bodies.
4.1. The current potential for a hazard to be created by walkers on public footpaths moving in proximity to a farmer’s grazing cattle, requires management of these competing interests. It was contended at the inquest that the farmer is subject to a statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in accordance with the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It was contended that a landowner must conduct his business around the existing public footpath, irrespective of which came into existence first. Whilst not disputing the legal duty imposed on a farmer in these circumstances, the potential mischief left unguarded in that analysis, is that Small & Medium Enterprises (SME’s) such as small family farms may lack the expertise to recognise the problem, carry out an effective risk assessment in relation to cattle trampling risks and devise reasonably practicable control measures.
4.2. To avoid the harm envisaged by further deaths in comparable circumstances, the HSE and Local Authorities should explore ways to apply their expertise in collaboration with landowners (of the type involved in this inquest), whether on a paid or voluntary basis. The maintenance of safe public rights of way could be said to require oversight and management by public bodies as well as the landowners concerned
4.3 One example of pragmatic help to eliminate cattle trampling risks would be for the HSE to draw attention to the process available under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to apply for a public footpath to be re-routed, so as to separate cows with calves and walkers. Consideration could be given to highlighting this option in a future edition of the HSE Information Sheet.
4.4 This report will be sent to special interest groups thought to have an interest in this issue, in the hope of enlisting their assistance in educating all who use the countryside in relation to the risk and the ways in which it could be eliminated.
1.1. In an incident on 29 September 2020 Mr Holmes died after being trampled by cattle. His wife sustained major spinal and other injuries. It was a catastrophe for their family. The couple were walking on a public footpath which ran through the middle of a large field. It occurred as they were on a lunchtime walk at a time when they were working from home due to the Covid pandemic.
1.2. Statistics from the Health & Safety Executive (‘HSE’) indicate that on average 6 people have died each year from injuries sustained in cattle trampling incidents. 11 people died in 2020, one of whom was Mr Holmes. Such incidents are avoidable if walkers and cattle are separated. In my judgment, this unacceptable situation necessitates a review of the arrangements in which walkers are brought into contact with cows and their calves, by virtue of rights of way.
1.3. The field in which the incident occurred (the ‘incident field’) had been used to graze cattle for over 50 years. The public footpath had existed since the National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act 1949 recorded its existence. The logic for the precise path through the incident field has been lost in the mists of time.
1.4. Following the fatal incident, the farmer made a formal application dated 12 January 2021, to divert the public footpath to the edge of the incident field and erect a suitable fence, so as to create a safe corridor which separates walkers from the cattle (the ‘application’). All the witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest endorsed the wisdom of the application. One described it as “essential.”
1.5. As objections have been lodged to the application, the matter must be resolved by way of a public enquiry. The Secretary of State is asked to ensure the decision maker in such a process is aware of the unanimous views expressed in the course of the inquest. The application may well eliminate altogether the risk identified in the incident field.
2. The general position in relation to dogs on Rights of Way
2.1. HSE Information sheet No 17EW (rev1) published 05/19 states the two most common factors in trampling incidents are cows with calves and walkers with dogs. Mr & Mrs Holmes had two dogs on leads at the time. The inquest heard evidence about four previous incidents in the incident field, three of which involved walkers accompanied by dogs. There appears to be a strong correlation between trampling incidents and walkers with dogs.
2.2. The conclusion to be drawn is that cows with calves and dogs do not mix well, particularly when the calves are young.
2.3. Evidence was given at the inquest to the effect that dogs are regarded as a ‘usual accompaniment’ and are thus entitled to be brought onto a Right of Way. This proposition lacks clarity. There is also uncertainty as to whether dogs are required to be on a lead when on a public footpath.
2.4. Consideration should be given in the HSE Information Sheet to a clarification of the legal position of dogs brought onto rights of way where it is foreseeable they will interact with cows and their young calves.
3. The power to restrict dogs on public footpaths, at certain times.
3.1. It is difficult to predict whether a particular cow will react aggressively to the presence of a dog in a field. It was suggested during the inquest, the risk of such a reaction is highest in the months after the birth of a calf.
3.2. To neutralise this risk, consideration should be given to empowering Local Authority Footpath officers (on an application made by a farmer in relation to an identified field), to prohibit dogs being taken onto the field for a specified period. In short, a temporary prohibition order. The rationale for a temporary expedient of this nature is the imperative to protect the safety of the public, when set against the relatively brief interference with any right a walker may have to be accompanied by a dog.
3.3. An alternative approach would be to authorise landowners to post notices at the entrance to particular fields, alerting walkers to the presence of cows with young calves and advising them not to bring dogs into the field (whether on a lead or not) between specified dates. The objective of preventing harm may not, however, be achieved if walkers ignore the advice or the suggested signs are vandalised. 3.4 It is acknowledged that statutory change would be required to create powers of this nature. The Secretary of State will doubtless reflect upon the balance to be struck between the imperative of protecting the safety of the public and the relatively brief interference this would impose on the right of walkers to bring their dog into any field affected. It should also be borne in mind that the people whose safety is currently jeopardised under existing arrangements are the dog walkers themselves.
4. The role of public bodies.
4.1. The current potential for a hazard to be created by walkers on public footpaths moving in proximity to a farmer’s grazing cattle, requires management of these competing interests. It was contended at the inquest that the farmer is subject to a statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in accordance with the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It was contended that a landowner must conduct his business around the existing public footpath, irrespective of which came into existence first. Whilst not disputing the legal duty imposed on a farmer in these circumstances, the potential mischief left unguarded in that analysis, is that Small & Medium Enterprises (SME’s) such as small family farms may lack the expertise to recognise the problem, carry out an effective risk assessment in relation to cattle trampling risks and devise reasonably practicable control measures.
4.2. To avoid the harm envisaged by further deaths in comparable circumstances, the HSE and Local Authorities should explore ways to apply their expertise in collaboration with landowners (of the type involved in this inquest), whether on a paid or voluntary basis. The maintenance of safe public rights of way could be said to require oversight and management by public bodies as well as the landowners concerned
4.3 One example of pragmatic help to eliminate cattle trampling risks would be for the HSE to draw attention to the process available under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to apply for a public footpath to be re-routed, so as to separate cows with calves and walkers. Consideration could be given to highlighting this option in a future edition of the HSE Information Sheet.
4.4 This report will be sent to special interest groups thought to have an interest in this issue, in the hope of enlisting their assistance in educating all who use the countryside in relation to the risk and the ways in which it could be eliminated.
Responses
Wakefield Council states that many concerns are national issues and outside its direct remit. Specifically regarding footpath re-routing, no action is proposed by the Council in the absence of changes to the statutory framework within which it operates.
AI summary
View full response
Dear Mr Mc Loughlin Re: Inquest touching the death of Michael Holmes - Response to PFD report on behalf of Wakefield Council Further to the copy of the PFD report received on 20th January 2023, please treat this letter as Wakefield Council's formal response. The PFD report was addressed for the attention of , who as you are aware is currently absent from work following surgery. is not expected to return to work until after the date when a response is due to your PDF report. In any event, I am able to address the matters identified within your PFD which have relevance to Wakefield Council and as detailed to you in evidence by me at the inquest on 17th January 2023. Context of Wakefield Council's involvement at Inquest Following request by letter dated 9th January 2023 received on 10th January 2023 for a Council Officer to attend the Inquest on Monday 16th January to give evidence, Wakefield Council provided a copy ofthe statement of dated 12th January 2023 [Annex 1] which gives context to this response to your PFD report. Wakefield Council additionally provided to you information in a Note on 1?lh January 2023. Much of the PFD report identifies national issues and so this response only addresses matters where Wakefield Council has relevant information in respect of the matters of concern you have raised. For ease of reference, we have responded to each of your concerns in red within the text of your PFD report copied below.
5 CORONER'S CONCERNS During the course of the Inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows:
1. Considerations regarding the field where the fatality occurred.
1.1. In an incident on 29 September 2020 Mr Holmes died after being trampled by cattle. His wife sustained major spinal and other injuries. It was a catastrophe for their family. The couple were walking on a public footpath which ran through the middle of a large field. It occurred as they were on a lunchtime walk at a time when they were working from home due to the Covid pandemic.
1.2. Statistics from the Health & Safety Executive ('HSE') indicate that on average 6 people have died each year from injuries sustained in cattle trampling incidents. 11 people died in 2020, one of whom was Mr Holmes. Such incidents are avoidable if walkers and cattle are separated. In my judgment, this unacceptable situation necessitates a review of the arrangements in which walkers are brought into contact with cows and their calves, by virtue of rights of way.
1.3. The field in which the incident occurred (the 'incident field') had been used to graze cattle for over 50 years. The public footpath had existed since the National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act 1949 recorded its existence. The logic for the precise path through the incident field has been lost in the mists of time. Response: It is not uncommon for public rights of way to follow the most direct route from points A to B across the countryside, including through farmer's fields, such as the "incident field". Convenient use public rights of way is one of the key aspects embedded in the Highways Act 1980, for example an application under Section 119 of the Act to deviate the route of a PROW could fail if the alternate route would cause substantial inconvenience to its users.
1.4. Following the fatal incident, the farmer made a formal application dated 12 January 2021, to divert the public footpath to the edge of the incident field and erect a suitable fence, so as to create a safe corridor which separates walkers from the cattle (the 'application'). All the witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest endorsed the wisdom of the application. One described it as "essential." Response: On the 1 October 2020, the HSE issued a prohibition notice [P/ST/30092020/1]. It prohibits the grazing of cows with calves in fields with public access because they are not segregated from the public when in these fields. Before releases cows with calves back into the fields with public rights of way, must take steps to protect members of the public from attack. This Prohibition remains in place. In respect of the field where Mr Holmes was killed, if is to use field 5357 for grazing cattle, then the footpath and walkers using it are protected from grazing cattle by an electric fence. This was confirmed in evidence by Principal HSE Inspector
1.5. As objections have been lodged to the application, the matter must be resolved by way of a public enquiry. The Secretary of State is asked to ensure the decision maker in such a process is aware of the unanimous views expressed in the course of the inquest. The application may well eliminate altogether the risk identified in the incident field.
Following this incident, in January 2021 applied to the Council pursuant to s119 Highways Act 1980 to divert three public footpaths in Hollinghurst Farm that passed through fields that were used for grazing cattle, including Sitlington 35. The application was made in the "interests of the owner" to enable best use of the grazing land whilst separating the public from the cattle. The Council made 3 Diversion Orders on 8 March 2021 One of the Orders [Annex 2] relative to the PROW through the incident field had 5 objections and work was done to address these. Two objections relating to the incident field PROW have not been resolved. Where there are unresolved objections, the Council must refer the Order to the Secretary of State who will appoint an Inspector to consider the Contested Order and whether to confirm the diversion or not. The final decision maker on confirmation of the Order is the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. If the Contested Order is confirmed, the right of way will be diverted. If the Order is not confirmed the right of way will remain on its current alignment. However, the Prohibition remains in place. In respect of the field where Mr Holmes was killed, if
is to use field 5357 for grazing cattle, then the footpath and walkers using it are protected by an electric fence. This was confirmed in evidence to be the position by Principal HSE Inspector
It is likely that there will be a public inquiry, hearing, or written representations, to enable an Inspector to make their decision in respect of the contested Diversion Order. Wakefield Council has suggested, considering the nature of the two remaining objections, that it believes the Planning Inspector could resolve the matter though written representations and without the need for a public inquiry. The Contested Order, and all associated documents, have been sent to the Secretary of State with the Council's request that the Order. There is a backlog within the Planning Inspectorate in respect of Diversion of rights of way. Public Footpath Sitlington 35 - Diversion Application and Order Timeline Site meeting attended by PROW Officers and landowner to discuss 15 December 2020 possible diversion of footpath. Informal consultation undertaken on: 8 January 2021 applied to the Council to divert public footpaths at Hollinghurst Farm that passed through fields that were used for grazing 12 January 2021 cattle. Orders made on: 8 March 2021 Orders advertised: 18th March 2021 Objections received within statutory notification period 2 Outstanding objections (concerning various aspects of new route and a preference for the diverted path to take another route)
3 objections made and then subsequently withdrawn 5 representations in support received Unconfirmed Order for which objections remain submitted to Secretary of State for determination. 3 January 20231 1 I apologise to HMSC as in the material provided to the court we had detailed in error that the submission had been made to the Secretary of State in March 2022. Subsequent to the inquest concluding, on the 23rd January 2023 a Public Rights of Way Officer with Wakefield Council updated the planning inspectorate in respect of the inquest outcome by email, provided the Record of Inquest and requested an update as to the application to the Planning Inspectorate and confirmed that he would provide the PFD report once it had been provided to Wakefield Council and requested: "Any means of expediting this case that is available to the Inspectorate would therefore be appreciated. Wakefield Council would be happy to make its case by written representations if the Inspector is minded that this is appropriate." A response to this email was received on 24th January 2023 from
- Rights of Way Caseworker and Charting - DEFRA Team of the Planning Inspectorate. confirmed that the email and the Record of Inquest had been added to the file and that he would look for the file in the backlog of case. On the 26th January 2023, confirmed by email to that: "We have recruited 4 new case officers who start in early February 2023 which will mean our backlog will eventually reduce. However, taking training and since they will be lower at the start of employment into account, my estimate is that it is unlikely to be actioned before Easter. If your Council wishes to make a case for this Order to be expedited and for it to be processed as soon as possible you can write to me with your reasons." On the 27th January 2023, provided the PFD report to by email and highlighted Section 5 and sub section 1.5 of the PFD report detailing HMSC's concerns and requested that: "As a result of the specific concerns raised in the Coroner's report we confirm that we would wish for this Order to be determined at the earliest possible time." On the 30th January 2023, acknowledged and noted the request for the Order to be expedited. On the 28th February 2023, emailed confirming that the Council was finalising this response to the PFD report and asked: "Further to my email in January are you able to give us any further information on the timetable for determination of the Order? Anything further you are able to tell us would be appreciated and enable us to respond to the Coroner as accurately as possible." responded by email the same day confirming: "We have recently recruited 4 new case officers to replace staff who moved on during and since lockdown with the aim of bringing down the backlog of cases to start. They are currently in training so it may be 4-5 weeks before we start to see results. Currently the oldest cases I have are from Marchi April 2022. As the Order was received in January 2023, there are 9 months ofolder cases before it. I am hopeful that this Order will have been started within 4 months as opposed to 9." On the 1st March 2023, emailed and requested again the decision to be expedited: "We appreciate the situation concerning backlog and timescales however, we again request for special expedited consideration of this case. This is further to the Coroner's view as detailed in the Prevention of Future Death report, that the Order "may well eliminate altogether the risk identified in the incident field''. Wakefield Council will provide this response and the PFD report to so that he
ensures the decision maker allocated to consider the Order is aware by this response of what is described by the Senior Coroner as: "the unanimous views expressed in the course of the inquest" and that in the Senior Coroner's view, "The application may well eliminate altogether the risk identified in the incident field."
2. The general position in relation to dogs on Rights of Way
2.1. HSE Information sheet No 17EW (rev1) published 05/19 states the two most common factors in trampling incidents are cows with calves and walkers with dogs. Mr & Mrs Holmes had two dogs on leads at the time. The inquest heard evidence about four previous incidents in the incident field, three of which involved walkers accompanied by dogs. There appears to be a strong correlation between trampling incidents and walkers with dogs.
2.2. The conclusion to be drawn is that cows with calves and dogs do not mix well, particularly when the calves are young.
2.3. Evidence was given at the inquest to the effect that dogs are regarded as a 'usual accompaniment' and are thus entitled to be brought onto a Right of Way. This proposition lacks clarity. There is also uncertainty as to whether dogs are required to be on a lead when on a public footpath. Response: These are identified as national issues requiring consideration and response by the Secretary of State and wider engagement with key stakeholders. Wakefield Council, as with other local authorities, is a creature of statute where its authority and powers arise from a statutory framework. In the case of Public Rights of Way (PROW), these statutory duties and powers arise from the Highways Act 1980 and any associated case law. It is proposed that Wakefield Council could not act in isolation without a change in the legal framework within which the Council operates. Wakefield Council confirmed in evidence to the inquest that dogs are considered and regarded as a 'usual accompaniment' on a PROW and therefore dogs are permitted to with be a keeper/controller on a PROW. Although legislation does not require that dogs be on a lead whilst on a public right of way, the owner must ensure that they are fully in control of the dog at all times. The dog is not entitled to roam away from the path and if it does so, the owner could be guilty of committing trespass against the landowner. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 makes it a specific offence to allow a dog to be at large in a field or enclosure where there are sheep, and a farmer may have a defence in any civil proceedings for killing or injuring a dog which is caught worrying sheep. In short, the walker with dog must ensure their dog is under close control near livestock and if the owner has any doubts at all about their ability to control their dog they should keep it on a lead. The one exception to this rule is if the dog walker is in a field with cattle, especially with calves where the general advice is that if cows become aggressive towards the walker and their dog stay calm and let the dog off the lead.
2.4. Consideration should be given in the HSE Information Sheet to a clarification of the legal position of dogs brought onto rights of way where it is foreseeable they will interact with cows and their young calves Response: This is identified as a national issue requirinq consideration and response bY the HSE. No
action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of a change to the statutory framework within which it operates. However, as was the clear evidence at the inquest, including in submissions by
who confirmed that the obligation under health and safety law, is on the duty holder, i.e. that of the farmer to control the risk presented by cattle and calves to members of the public undertaking their right to use the PROW. As I detailed in evidence, it is for landowners, managers, owners and occupiers of the land to risk assess activities being conducted by them on their land and any attendant risks their use of their own land could pose to members of the public exercising their legal rights to walk on a public right of way
3. The power to restrict dogs on public footpaths, at certain times.
3.1 . It is difficult to predict whether a particular cow will react aggressively to the presence of a dog in a field. It was suggested during the inquest, the risk of such a reaction is highest in the months after the birth of a calf.
3.2. To neutralise this risk, consideration should be given to empowering Local Authority Footpath officers (on an application made by a farmer in relation to an identified field), to prohibit dogs being taken onto the field for a specified period. In short, a temporary prohibition order. The rationale for a temporary expedient of this nature is the imperative to protect the safety of the public, when set against the relatively brief interference with any right a walker may have to be accompanied by a dog Response This is identified as a national issue requiring consideration and response by the Secretary of State having identified that it would require statutory change. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates.
3.3. An alternative approach would be to authorise landowners to post notices at the entrance to particular fields, alerting walkers to the presence of cows with young calves and advising them not to bring dogs into the field (whether on a lead or not) between specified dates. The objective of preventing harm may not, however, be achieved if walkers ignore the advice or the suggested signs are vandalised. Response: This is identified as a national issue requiring consideration and response by the Secretary of State having identified that it would require statutory change. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates.
3.4 It is acknowledged that statutory change would be required to create powers of this nature. The Secretary of State will doubtless reflect upon the balance to be struck between the imperative of protecting the safety of the public and the relatively brief interference this would impose on the right of walkers to bring their dog into any field affected. It should also be borne in mind that the people whose safety is currently jeopardised under existing arrangements are the dog walkers themselves. Response: This is identified as a national Issue requiring consideration and response by the Secretary of State. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates.
4. The role of public bodies.
4.1 The current potential for a hazard to be created by walkers on public footpaths moving in proximity to a farmer's qrazinq cattle, requires management of these competing
interests. It was contended at the inquest that the farmer is subject to a statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in accordance with the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It was contended that a landowner must conduct his business around the existing public footpath , irrespective of which came into existence first. Whilst not disputing the legal duty imposed on a farmer in these circumstances, the potential mischief left unguarded in that analysis, is that Small & Medium Enterprises (SME's) such as small family farms may lack the expertise to recognise the problem, carry out an effective risk assessment in relation to cattle trampling risks and devise reasonably practicable control measures.
4.2. To avoid the harm envisaged by further deaths in comparable circumstances, the HSE and Local Authorities should explore ways to apply their expertise in collaboration with landowners ( of the type involved in this inquest), whether on a paid or voluntary basis. The maintenance of safe public rights of way could be said to require oversight and management by public bodies as well as the landowners concerned. Response: This is a national Issue that would require response by the Secretary of State and the HSE. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates. It is proposed that the hazard is created by the presence of the cow with calves in the vicinity of members of the public, thus creating a risk to their safety. It is for landowners, managers, owners and occupiers of the land to risk assess activities being conducted by them on their land and any attendant risks their use of their own land could pose to members of the public exercising their legal rights to walk on a public right of way. The responsibility is the duty holders and not that of the HSE or local authority. To suggest that the HSE and LAs could apply their expertise to landowners on a paid or voluntary basis would not be workable and could be said to dilute the responsibility of the duty holder. Advice on how to assess and manage risk is provided through the HSE and as with any other business it is incumbent on the duty holder to manage those risks. Oversight and management by public bodies as well as the landowners concerned is not the current position and would be unworkable. A public body cannot be expected to know what landowners are doing on their land from hour to hour or day to day, which is why the obligation is placed on the duty holder to risk assess activities being conducted by them on their land and any attendant risks their use of their own land could pose to members of the public exercising their legal rights to walk on a public right of way.
4.3 One example of pragmatic help to eliminate cattle trampling risks would be for the HSE to draw attention to the process available under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to apply for a public footpath to be re-routed, so as to separate cows with calves and walkers. Consideration could be given to highlighting this option in a future edition of the HSE Information Sheet. Response: This is a national Issue that would require response by the HSE. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates. A Diversion Order application process takes time and has regard to the test contained in s119 Highways Act, "in the interests of the owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by the path ... it is expedient that the line of the path or way or part of that line should be diverted. " The duty holder's health and safety responsibilities are quite separate and clear. A landowner, lessee or occupier of land is well aware of a public right of way on their land and that at any time a member of the public mav be present on the PROW exercising their legal
right. It is for the landowner therefore to ensure that by their use of the land they do not create risks to those members of the public exercising their legitimate rights to walk over the PROW.
4.4 This report will be sent to special interest groups thought to have an interest in this issue, in the hope of enlisting their assistance in educating all who use the countryside in relation to the risk and the ways in which it could be eliminated. Response: Engagement with wider stakeholder groups on this issue is welcome. I trust this information is of assistance to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance.
5 CORONER'S CONCERNS During the course of the Inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows:
1. Considerations regarding the field where the fatality occurred.
1.1. In an incident on 29 September 2020 Mr Holmes died after being trampled by cattle. His wife sustained major spinal and other injuries. It was a catastrophe for their family. The couple were walking on a public footpath which ran through the middle of a large field. It occurred as they were on a lunchtime walk at a time when they were working from home due to the Covid pandemic.
1.2. Statistics from the Health & Safety Executive ('HSE') indicate that on average 6 people have died each year from injuries sustained in cattle trampling incidents. 11 people died in 2020, one of whom was Mr Holmes. Such incidents are avoidable if walkers and cattle are separated. In my judgment, this unacceptable situation necessitates a review of the arrangements in which walkers are brought into contact with cows and their calves, by virtue of rights of way.
1.3. The field in which the incident occurred (the 'incident field') had been used to graze cattle for over 50 years. The public footpath had existed since the National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act 1949 recorded its existence. The logic for the precise path through the incident field has been lost in the mists of time. Response: It is not uncommon for public rights of way to follow the most direct route from points A to B across the countryside, including through farmer's fields, such as the "incident field". Convenient use public rights of way is one of the key aspects embedded in the Highways Act 1980, for example an application under Section 119 of the Act to deviate the route of a PROW could fail if the alternate route would cause substantial inconvenience to its users.
1.4. Following the fatal incident, the farmer made a formal application dated 12 January 2021, to divert the public footpath to the edge of the incident field and erect a suitable fence, so as to create a safe corridor which separates walkers from the cattle (the 'application'). All the witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest endorsed the wisdom of the application. One described it as "essential." Response: On the 1 October 2020, the HSE issued a prohibition notice [P/ST/30092020/1]. It prohibits the grazing of cows with calves in fields with public access because they are not segregated from the public when in these fields. Before releases cows with calves back into the fields with public rights of way, must take steps to protect members of the public from attack. This Prohibition remains in place. In respect of the field where Mr Holmes was killed, if is to use field 5357 for grazing cattle, then the footpath and walkers using it are protected from grazing cattle by an electric fence. This was confirmed in evidence by Principal HSE Inspector
1.5. As objections have been lodged to the application, the matter must be resolved by way of a public enquiry. The Secretary of State is asked to ensure the decision maker in such a process is aware of the unanimous views expressed in the course of the inquest. The application may well eliminate altogether the risk identified in the incident field.
Following this incident, in January 2021 applied to the Council pursuant to s119 Highways Act 1980 to divert three public footpaths in Hollinghurst Farm that passed through fields that were used for grazing cattle, including Sitlington 35. The application was made in the "interests of the owner" to enable best use of the grazing land whilst separating the public from the cattle. The Council made 3 Diversion Orders on 8 March 2021 One of the Orders [Annex 2] relative to the PROW through the incident field had 5 objections and work was done to address these. Two objections relating to the incident field PROW have not been resolved. Where there are unresolved objections, the Council must refer the Order to the Secretary of State who will appoint an Inspector to consider the Contested Order and whether to confirm the diversion or not. The final decision maker on confirmation of the Order is the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. If the Contested Order is confirmed, the right of way will be diverted. If the Order is not confirmed the right of way will remain on its current alignment. However, the Prohibition remains in place. In respect of the field where Mr Holmes was killed, if
is to use field 5357 for grazing cattle, then the footpath and walkers using it are protected by an electric fence. This was confirmed in evidence to be the position by Principal HSE Inspector
It is likely that there will be a public inquiry, hearing, or written representations, to enable an Inspector to make their decision in respect of the contested Diversion Order. Wakefield Council has suggested, considering the nature of the two remaining objections, that it believes the Planning Inspector could resolve the matter though written representations and without the need for a public inquiry. The Contested Order, and all associated documents, have been sent to the Secretary of State with the Council's request that the Order. There is a backlog within the Planning Inspectorate in respect of Diversion of rights of way. Public Footpath Sitlington 35 - Diversion Application and Order Timeline Site meeting attended by PROW Officers and landowner to discuss 15 December 2020 possible diversion of footpath. Informal consultation undertaken on: 8 January 2021 applied to the Council to divert public footpaths at Hollinghurst Farm that passed through fields that were used for grazing 12 January 2021 cattle. Orders made on: 8 March 2021 Orders advertised: 18th March 2021 Objections received within statutory notification period 2 Outstanding objections (concerning various aspects of new route and a preference for the diverted path to take another route)
3 objections made and then subsequently withdrawn 5 representations in support received Unconfirmed Order for which objections remain submitted to Secretary of State for determination. 3 January 20231 1 I apologise to HMSC as in the material provided to the court we had detailed in error that the submission had been made to the Secretary of State in March 2022. Subsequent to the inquest concluding, on the 23rd January 2023 a Public Rights of Way Officer with Wakefield Council updated the planning inspectorate in respect of the inquest outcome by email, provided the Record of Inquest and requested an update as to the application to the Planning Inspectorate and confirmed that he would provide the PFD report once it had been provided to Wakefield Council and requested: "Any means of expediting this case that is available to the Inspectorate would therefore be appreciated. Wakefield Council would be happy to make its case by written representations if the Inspector is minded that this is appropriate." A response to this email was received on 24th January 2023 from
- Rights of Way Caseworker and Charting - DEFRA Team of the Planning Inspectorate. confirmed that the email and the Record of Inquest had been added to the file and that he would look for the file in the backlog of case. On the 26th January 2023, confirmed by email to that: "We have recruited 4 new case officers who start in early February 2023 which will mean our backlog will eventually reduce. However, taking training and since they will be lower at the start of employment into account, my estimate is that it is unlikely to be actioned before Easter. If your Council wishes to make a case for this Order to be expedited and for it to be processed as soon as possible you can write to me with your reasons." On the 27th January 2023, provided the PFD report to by email and highlighted Section 5 and sub section 1.5 of the PFD report detailing HMSC's concerns and requested that: "As a result of the specific concerns raised in the Coroner's report we confirm that we would wish for this Order to be determined at the earliest possible time." On the 30th January 2023, acknowledged and noted the request for the Order to be expedited. On the 28th February 2023, emailed confirming that the Council was finalising this response to the PFD report and asked: "Further to my email in January are you able to give us any further information on the timetable for determination of the Order? Anything further you are able to tell us would be appreciated and enable us to respond to the Coroner as accurately as possible." responded by email the same day confirming: "We have recently recruited 4 new case officers to replace staff who moved on during and since lockdown with the aim of bringing down the backlog of cases to start. They are currently in training so it may be 4-5 weeks before we start to see results. Currently the oldest cases I have are from Marchi April 2022. As the Order was received in January 2023, there are 9 months ofolder cases before it. I am hopeful that this Order will have been started within 4 months as opposed to 9." On the 1st March 2023, emailed and requested again the decision to be expedited: "We appreciate the situation concerning backlog and timescales however, we again request for special expedited consideration of this case. This is further to the Coroner's view as detailed in the Prevention of Future Death report, that the Order "may well eliminate altogether the risk identified in the incident field''. Wakefield Council will provide this response and the PFD report to so that he
ensures the decision maker allocated to consider the Order is aware by this response of what is described by the Senior Coroner as: "the unanimous views expressed in the course of the inquest" and that in the Senior Coroner's view, "The application may well eliminate altogether the risk identified in the incident field."
2. The general position in relation to dogs on Rights of Way
2.1. HSE Information sheet No 17EW (rev1) published 05/19 states the two most common factors in trampling incidents are cows with calves and walkers with dogs. Mr & Mrs Holmes had two dogs on leads at the time. The inquest heard evidence about four previous incidents in the incident field, three of which involved walkers accompanied by dogs. There appears to be a strong correlation between trampling incidents and walkers with dogs.
2.2. The conclusion to be drawn is that cows with calves and dogs do not mix well, particularly when the calves are young.
2.3. Evidence was given at the inquest to the effect that dogs are regarded as a 'usual accompaniment' and are thus entitled to be brought onto a Right of Way. This proposition lacks clarity. There is also uncertainty as to whether dogs are required to be on a lead when on a public footpath. Response: These are identified as national issues requiring consideration and response by the Secretary of State and wider engagement with key stakeholders. Wakefield Council, as with other local authorities, is a creature of statute where its authority and powers arise from a statutory framework. In the case of Public Rights of Way (PROW), these statutory duties and powers arise from the Highways Act 1980 and any associated case law. It is proposed that Wakefield Council could not act in isolation without a change in the legal framework within which the Council operates. Wakefield Council confirmed in evidence to the inquest that dogs are considered and regarded as a 'usual accompaniment' on a PROW and therefore dogs are permitted to with be a keeper/controller on a PROW. Although legislation does not require that dogs be on a lead whilst on a public right of way, the owner must ensure that they are fully in control of the dog at all times. The dog is not entitled to roam away from the path and if it does so, the owner could be guilty of committing trespass against the landowner. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 makes it a specific offence to allow a dog to be at large in a field or enclosure where there are sheep, and a farmer may have a defence in any civil proceedings for killing or injuring a dog which is caught worrying sheep. In short, the walker with dog must ensure their dog is under close control near livestock and if the owner has any doubts at all about their ability to control their dog they should keep it on a lead. The one exception to this rule is if the dog walker is in a field with cattle, especially with calves where the general advice is that if cows become aggressive towards the walker and their dog stay calm and let the dog off the lead.
2.4. Consideration should be given in the HSE Information Sheet to a clarification of the legal position of dogs brought onto rights of way where it is foreseeable they will interact with cows and their young calves Response: This is identified as a national issue requirinq consideration and response bY the HSE. No
action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of a change to the statutory framework within which it operates. However, as was the clear evidence at the inquest, including in submissions by
who confirmed that the obligation under health and safety law, is on the duty holder, i.e. that of the farmer to control the risk presented by cattle and calves to members of the public undertaking their right to use the PROW. As I detailed in evidence, it is for landowners, managers, owners and occupiers of the land to risk assess activities being conducted by them on their land and any attendant risks their use of their own land could pose to members of the public exercising their legal rights to walk on a public right of way
3. The power to restrict dogs on public footpaths, at certain times.
3.1 . It is difficult to predict whether a particular cow will react aggressively to the presence of a dog in a field. It was suggested during the inquest, the risk of such a reaction is highest in the months after the birth of a calf.
3.2. To neutralise this risk, consideration should be given to empowering Local Authority Footpath officers (on an application made by a farmer in relation to an identified field), to prohibit dogs being taken onto the field for a specified period. In short, a temporary prohibition order. The rationale for a temporary expedient of this nature is the imperative to protect the safety of the public, when set against the relatively brief interference with any right a walker may have to be accompanied by a dog Response This is identified as a national issue requiring consideration and response by the Secretary of State having identified that it would require statutory change. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates.
3.3. An alternative approach would be to authorise landowners to post notices at the entrance to particular fields, alerting walkers to the presence of cows with young calves and advising them not to bring dogs into the field (whether on a lead or not) between specified dates. The objective of preventing harm may not, however, be achieved if walkers ignore the advice or the suggested signs are vandalised. Response: This is identified as a national issue requiring consideration and response by the Secretary of State having identified that it would require statutory change. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates.
3.4 It is acknowledged that statutory change would be required to create powers of this nature. The Secretary of State will doubtless reflect upon the balance to be struck between the imperative of protecting the safety of the public and the relatively brief interference this would impose on the right of walkers to bring their dog into any field affected. It should also be borne in mind that the people whose safety is currently jeopardised under existing arrangements are the dog walkers themselves. Response: This is identified as a national Issue requiring consideration and response by the Secretary of State. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates.
4. The role of public bodies.
4.1 The current potential for a hazard to be created by walkers on public footpaths moving in proximity to a farmer's qrazinq cattle, requires management of these competing
interests. It was contended at the inquest that the farmer is subject to a statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in accordance with the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It was contended that a landowner must conduct his business around the existing public footpath , irrespective of which came into existence first. Whilst not disputing the legal duty imposed on a farmer in these circumstances, the potential mischief left unguarded in that analysis, is that Small & Medium Enterprises (SME's) such as small family farms may lack the expertise to recognise the problem, carry out an effective risk assessment in relation to cattle trampling risks and devise reasonably practicable control measures.
4.2. To avoid the harm envisaged by further deaths in comparable circumstances, the HSE and Local Authorities should explore ways to apply their expertise in collaboration with landowners ( of the type involved in this inquest), whether on a paid or voluntary basis. The maintenance of safe public rights of way could be said to require oversight and management by public bodies as well as the landowners concerned. Response: This is a national Issue that would require response by the Secretary of State and the HSE. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates. It is proposed that the hazard is created by the presence of the cow with calves in the vicinity of members of the public, thus creating a risk to their safety. It is for landowners, managers, owners and occupiers of the land to risk assess activities being conducted by them on their land and any attendant risks their use of their own land could pose to members of the public exercising their legal rights to walk on a public right of way. The responsibility is the duty holders and not that of the HSE or local authority. To suggest that the HSE and LAs could apply their expertise to landowners on a paid or voluntary basis would not be workable and could be said to dilute the responsibility of the duty holder. Advice on how to assess and manage risk is provided through the HSE and as with any other business it is incumbent on the duty holder to manage those risks. Oversight and management by public bodies as well as the landowners concerned is not the current position and would be unworkable. A public body cannot be expected to know what landowners are doing on their land from hour to hour or day to day, which is why the obligation is placed on the duty holder to risk assess activities being conducted by them on their land and any attendant risks their use of their own land could pose to members of the public exercising their legal rights to walk on a public right of way.
4.3 One example of pragmatic help to eliminate cattle trampling risks would be for the HSE to draw attention to the process available under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to apply for a public footpath to be re-routed, so as to separate cows with calves and walkers. Consideration could be given to highlighting this option in a future edition of the HSE Information Sheet. Response: This is a national Issue that would require response by the HSE. No action is proposed by Wakefield Council in the absence of change to the statutory framework within which it operates. A Diversion Order application process takes time and has regard to the test contained in s119 Highways Act, "in the interests of the owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by the path ... it is expedient that the line of the path or way or part of that line should be diverted. " The duty holder's health and safety responsibilities are quite separate and clear. A landowner, lessee or occupier of land is well aware of a public right of way on their land and that at any time a member of the public mav be present on the PROW exercising their legal
right. It is for the landowner therefore to ensure that by their use of the land they do not create risks to those members of the public exercising their legitimate rights to walk over the PROW.
4.4 This report will be sent to special interest groups thought to have an interest in this issue, in the hope of enlisting their assistance in educating all who use the countryside in relation to the risk and the ways in which it could be eliminated. Response: Engagement with wider stakeholder groups on this issue is welcome. I trust this information is of assistance to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance.
The HSE clarifies its role as a regulator for farm workplace safety, stating that duties for managing cattle risk to the public lie with farmers. It defers matters like posting specific notices or Highways Act provisions to other authorities, and will consider including information on footpath re-routing in future guidance reviews.
AI summary
View full response
Dear Mr McLoughlin Inquest into the death of Michael John Holmes – Regulation 28 report. Thank you for your letter dated 20th January 2023 to and the associated Regulation 28 report. I am the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) Inspector with the lead for operational policy in relation to controlling health and safety risks associated with cattle, and have been asked to reply to you on the matters that you raise. We note your report was sent to a number of bodies with an interest in this issue. This response will address matters that are within HSE’s areas of responsibility as a regulator, and highlight where matters are more appropriately addressed by other organisations. Introduction Incidents such as the one that happened on 29th September 2020 to Mr Holmes and his wife are not commonplace. There are many thousands of miles of public rights of way crossing the farmland of Great Britain, and many thousands of members of the public use those rights of way each year without incident. HSE are Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety, this includes the farm workplace. The principal health and safety legislation enforced by HSE is the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA). This places general duties on employers and the self- employed to conduct their undertakings in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons other than themselves or their employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. In the context of this incident it means there is a legal duty on all farmers
to manage their herd so the animals within it present a low level of risk to members of the public who use fields with rights of way or other rights of public access. To help farmers comply with their legal duties, HSE publication AIS17 “Cattle and public access in England and Wales. Advice for farmers, landowners and other livestock keepers” is freely available to download from our website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais17ew.pdf. This information sheet was drawn up in consultation with the farming industry and provides guidance to enable those with duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act to meet their legal obligations. While HSE has a role to play in assisting farmers to comply with their legal duties by provision of information and guidance, it also has a regulatory role through inspection and investigation to ensure that farms meet minimum legal standards in controlling risk. HSE works closely with members of Britain’s Farm Safety Partnerships (FSPs) to improve the health and safety record of the farming industry. Further information on managing risks from cattle is available via members of Britain’s FSPs. The information provided by many of its member organisations extends to provision of information directly for the public, as well as to the actions that farmers and landowners can consider where a risk is identified. The information provided by these organisations compliments that published by Natural England in “The Countryside Code: advice for countryside visitors” and “The Countryside Code: advice for land managers”, both available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the countryside-code. Dealing with the MATTERS OF CONCERN raised within your report:
1. Considerations regarding the field where the fatality occurred. In relation to HSE’s statistics and for clarity, over the last 5 years, there have been, on average, 6 deaths each year due to workplace cattle related incidents. These deaths are not solely related to trampling incidents. The numbers relate to all workplace cattle related deaths to farmers, workers and members of the public. Each year HSE publishes a report on the number of people killed as a result of farming and other agriculture-related activities. The latest report and previous reports can be found on HSE’s website at
(particularly cattle) are one of the largest causes of farming workplace deaths. Many more people are very seriously injured. This is why it is so important that farmers follow HSE and industry guidance to reduce the risk to people from cattle. On the issue of separation, HSE has fully considered reasonable control measures that are flexible and proportionate to the risk presented by a particular herd to walkers and others. These are outlined in AIS17. The measures HSE would expect farmers to have considered and, where possible implemented, include: Preventing the keeping of dairy bulls in fields with public access at any time. Where possible avoiding putting cattle, especially cattle that are calving or have calves at foot, in fields with public access. Where there is a need to keep cattle, especially cattle that are calving or have calves at foot, in a field with public access, where reasonably practicable to do so the farmer should be keeping animals and people separated. This can be achieved by the use of fencing (permanent or moveable / temporary e.g. electric fencing). Segregation is particularly important at busy times or where fields with public access are heavily used. 2
Assessing the temperament of all cattle before putting them into a field with public access. If cattle, especially cattle that are calving or have calves at foot, do need to be put into fields with public access, this period should be kept to a minimum. Positioning feed and water troughs away from the public footpath and away from public entrances and exits to the field. Having a reliable system to monitor all cattle in fields with public access at least daily. Preventing any animal that is suspected of showing, or has shown any sign of aggression from being kept in fields with public access. This should extend to consideration of culling any animal that shows signs of aggression. Clearly sign posting all public access routes across the farm. Display appropriate signage at all entrances to fields with cattle. Remove signage when the animals are no longer in the field. I understand from your report, that the farmer made a formal application to divert the public footpath to the edge of the incident field and erect suitable fencing to create a safe corridor and segregate walkers from cattle. The legislation regarding rights of way falls under Defra’s responsibility and is not a matter for HSE, although we understand that the divert process can take time and does not offer a prompt solution. The issue of diversions, whether temporary or permanent, and of the provision of permissive alternative routes, is not straightforward, and may not always offer the best solution to manage the risks. In recognition of this HSE’s AIS17 guidance gives pragmatic short-term options that landowners and farmers can consider with regard to offering alternative routes to the footpaths crossing their land if their risk assessment shows this to be necessary. The guidance provides sufficient information to allow farmers and landowners to comply with their legal obligations under the HSWA.
2. The general position in relation to dogs on Rights of Way. Farmers have a duty to manage the risk created by placing cattle in fields with public rights of way. HSE does recognise that the presence of a dog(s) and cows with calves does increase the risk of incidents. However, the control measures already outlined, if followed, limit the times when cattle with calves are in fields with public access, and if there is no alternative provide reasonable mitigation to control the risk to a low level. Your report states that dogs are “entitled to be brought onto a Right of Way”, but that there is “uncertainty as to whether dogs are required to be on a lead when on a public footpath”. These are not matters for HSE, the legislation regarding rights of way falls under Defra’s responsibility. The purpose of HSE’s AIS17 is to outline advice for farmers, landowners and other livestock keepers on how to comply with their legal responsibilities to reasonably control risk to people using public rights of way. As mentioned above, other publications exist to provide advice to members of the public on the control of dogs on public rights of way. Members of the public using the countryside should play their part by staying on the right of way while walking through the field and if with a dog(s) keeping it under control and on a lead. Additional advice is outlined in the free online publication “The Countryside Code: advice for countryside visitors - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)”.
3. The power to restrict dogs on public footpaths, at certain times. HSE has no role in empowering LA footpath officers to prohibit dogs from fields for specified periods so we can’t comment on this aspect of your report. 3
In relation to signage, this is already a control measure that is available to farmers and mentioned in our guidance. We are aware that a number of organisations offer suitable signs to their farming members. Although not the sole means of achieving a reasonable level of safety when coupled with other measures they can still have a part to play in effective control of risk. The specific matter of posting notices at the entrance to particular fields specifically to advise walkers not to bring dogs into a field containing animals between certain dates is outside of HSE’s remit as a regulator, and is more appropriate for others to offer comment.
4. The role of public bodies. As explained earlier in this letter, there is a legal duty on all farmers to manage their herd so the animals within it present a low level of risk to members of the public who use fields with rights of way or other rights of public access. Health and safety law applies equally to large and small companies. Recognising that many duty holders don’t have in-house expertise, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers and partnerships to have arrangements to access competent advice from someone to help them understand and comply with their obligations and assist in the discharge of their health and safety duties. This competent advice is widely available from agricultural consultants, farming member organisations (e.g. NFU) or via insurance companies. The maintenance and management of public rights of way is principally governed by local authority officers. HSE is not the appropriate authority to comment on the Highways Act provisions and the oversight matters you mention. Finally, thank you for your suggestion to include additional information in AIS17 on the mechanism to apply for a public footpath to be re-routed. We keep guidance, including AIS17, under periodic re-evaluation. When next reviewed, we will take your comments into consideration.
to manage their herd so the animals within it present a low level of risk to members of the public who use fields with rights of way or other rights of public access. To help farmers comply with their legal duties, HSE publication AIS17 “Cattle and public access in England and Wales. Advice for farmers, landowners and other livestock keepers” is freely available to download from our website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais17ew.pdf. This information sheet was drawn up in consultation with the farming industry and provides guidance to enable those with duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act to meet their legal obligations. While HSE has a role to play in assisting farmers to comply with their legal duties by provision of information and guidance, it also has a regulatory role through inspection and investigation to ensure that farms meet minimum legal standards in controlling risk. HSE works closely with members of Britain’s Farm Safety Partnerships (FSPs) to improve the health and safety record of the farming industry. Further information on managing risks from cattle is available via members of Britain’s FSPs. The information provided by many of its member organisations extends to provision of information directly for the public, as well as to the actions that farmers and landowners can consider where a risk is identified. The information provided by these organisations compliments that published by Natural England in “The Countryside Code: advice for countryside visitors” and “The Countryside Code: advice for land managers”, both available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the countryside-code. Dealing with the MATTERS OF CONCERN raised within your report:
1. Considerations regarding the field where the fatality occurred. In relation to HSE’s statistics and for clarity, over the last 5 years, there have been, on average, 6 deaths each year due to workplace cattle related incidents. These deaths are not solely related to trampling incidents. The numbers relate to all workplace cattle related deaths to farmers, workers and members of the public. Each year HSE publishes a report on the number of people killed as a result of farming and other agriculture-related activities. The latest report and previous reports can be found on HSE’s website at
(particularly cattle) are one of the largest causes of farming workplace deaths. Many more people are very seriously injured. This is why it is so important that farmers follow HSE and industry guidance to reduce the risk to people from cattle. On the issue of separation, HSE has fully considered reasonable control measures that are flexible and proportionate to the risk presented by a particular herd to walkers and others. These are outlined in AIS17. The measures HSE would expect farmers to have considered and, where possible implemented, include: Preventing the keeping of dairy bulls in fields with public access at any time. Where possible avoiding putting cattle, especially cattle that are calving or have calves at foot, in fields with public access. Where there is a need to keep cattle, especially cattle that are calving or have calves at foot, in a field with public access, where reasonably practicable to do so the farmer should be keeping animals and people separated. This can be achieved by the use of fencing (permanent or moveable / temporary e.g. electric fencing). Segregation is particularly important at busy times or where fields with public access are heavily used. 2
Assessing the temperament of all cattle before putting them into a field with public access. If cattle, especially cattle that are calving or have calves at foot, do need to be put into fields with public access, this period should be kept to a minimum. Positioning feed and water troughs away from the public footpath and away from public entrances and exits to the field. Having a reliable system to monitor all cattle in fields with public access at least daily. Preventing any animal that is suspected of showing, or has shown any sign of aggression from being kept in fields with public access. This should extend to consideration of culling any animal that shows signs of aggression. Clearly sign posting all public access routes across the farm. Display appropriate signage at all entrances to fields with cattle. Remove signage when the animals are no longer in the field. I understand from your report, that the farmer made a formal application to divert the public footpath to the edge of the incident field and erect suitable fencing to create a safe corridor and segregate walkers from cattle. The legislation regarding rights of way falls under Defra’s responsibility and is not a matter for HSE, although we understand that the divert process can take time and does not offer a prompt solution. The issue of diversions, whether temporary or permanent, and of the provision of permissive alternative routes, is not straightforward, and may not always offer the best solution to manage the risks. In recognition of this HSE’s AIS17 guidance gives pragmatic short-term options that landowners and farmers can consider with regard to offering alternative routes to the footpaths crossing their land if their risk assessment shows this to be necessary. The guidance provides sufficient information to allow farmers and landowners to comply with their legal obligations under the HSWA.
2. The general position in relation to dogs on Rights of Way. Farmers have a duty to manage the risk created by placing cattle in fields with public rights of way. HSE does recognise that the presence of a dog(s) and cows with calves does increase the risk of incidents. However, the control measures already outlined, if followed, limit the times when cattle with calves are in fields with public access, and if there is no alternative provide reasonable mitigation to control the risk to a low level. Your report states that dogs are “entitled to be brought onto a Right of Way”, but that there is “uncertainty as to whether dogs are required to be on a lead when on a public footpath”. These are not matters for HSE, the legislation regarding rights of way falls under Defra’s responsibility. The purpose of HSE’s AIS17 is to outline advice for farmers, landowners and other livestock keepers on how to comply with their legal responsibilities to reasonably control risk to people using public rights of way. As mentioned above, other publications exist to provide advice to members of the public on the control of dogs on public rights of way. Members of the public using the countryside should play their part by staying on the right of way while walking through the field and if with a dog(s) keeping it under control and on a lead. Additional advice is outlined in the free online publication “The Countryside Code: advice for countryside visitors - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)”.
3. The power to restrict dogs on public footpaths, at certain times. HSE has no role in empowering LA footpath officers to prohibit dogs from fields for specified periods so we can’t comment on this aspect of your report. 3
In relation to signage, this is already a control measure that is available to farmers and mentioned in our guidance. We are aware that a number of organisations offer suitable signs to their farming members. Although not the sole means of achieving a reasonable level of safety when coupled with other measures they can still have a part to play in effective control of risk. The specific matter of posting notices at the entrance to particular fields specifically to advise walkers not to bring dogs into a field containing animals between certain dates is outside of HSE’s remit as a regulator, and is more appropriate for others to offer comment.
4. The role of public bodies. As explained earlier in this letter, there is a legal duty on all farmers to manage their herd so the animals within it present a low level of risk to members of the public who use fields with rights of way or other rights of public access. Health and safety law applies equally to large and small companies. Recognising that many duty holders don’t have in-house expertise, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers and partnerships to have arrangements to access competent advice from someone to help them understand and comply with their obligations and assist in the discharge of their health and safety duties. This competent advice is widely available from agricultural consultants, farming member organisations (e.g. NFU) or via insurance companies. The maintenance and management of public rights of way is principally governed by local authority officers. HSE is not the appropriate authority to comment on the Highways Act provisions and the oversight matters you mention. Finally, thank you for your suggestion to include additional information in AIS17 on the mechanism to apply for a public footpath to be re-routed. We keep guidance, including AIS17, under periodic re-evaluation. When next reviewed, we will take your comments into consideration.
DEFRA clarifies its role in rights of way policy, outlining existing legislation regarding bulls in fields and the responsibilities for visitors and land managers under the updated Countryside Code. It notes that guidance for diverting public rights of way is available and will be reviewed for accessibility as part of future reforms.
AI summary
View full response
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your letter of 20 January with regard to the inquest into the death of Mi- chael John Holmes. Firstly, may I say I am very sorry to hear of this tragic incident and my deepest sympathies go to Mr Holmes’s family. I would also like to apologise for the time take to respond.
While many thousands of people enjoy the countryside and use the extensive network of footpaths, bridleways, and public access land every day, activities such as walking through or near cattle can be hazardous. Such incidents across the public rights of way network are rare however we do understand the concerns about ongoing public safety.
Defra is responsible for rights of way policy and this response sets out Defra’s response to the points you have addressed to this department. I note that you have also copied your report to the Health and Safety Executive who have responded to you separately in light of their responsibilities for providing guidance to farmers, landowners and other live- stock keepers about the assessment of risks posed by livestock being kept in a field with a public right of way.
MATTERS OF CONCERN
Considerations regarding the field where the fatality occurred
We want people to be able to enjoy the countryside, but it is vital that people and animals are kept safe and it is important that there is information available to members of the pub- lic about the risks posed by livestock in a field to which the public has a right of access and that landowners are aware of their responsibilities.
The Highways Act 1980 gives powers for changes to be made to the public rights of way network including diversions where it is in the public interest. We are aware of the appli- cation made to the local authority under Section 119 of the Act to have the public right of way in question diverted to mitigate the risk of such incidents in future.
As you pointed out in your report, objections to the diversion have been received there- fore an application has been made to the Planning Inspectorate which is currently pro- cessing the application and will consider carefully any representations and objections re- ceived in accordance with standard procedures before making a decision on behalf of the Secretary of State.
We are aware of calls for a change in legislation to enable temporary path diversion or- ders however there are no plans to introduce such regulations at this time.
However, we are committed to implementing a number of rights of way reforms which in- clude giving landowners the statutory right to apply to a local authority for a public path order to permanently extinguish or divert a footpath or bridleway where it is in the public interest to do so.
Section 59 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 bans bulls of seven recognised dairy breeds (i.e. Ayrshire, British Friesian, British Holstein, Dairy Shorthorn, Guernsey, Jersey and Kerry) that are over the age of ten months in all circumstances from being at large in fields crossed by public rights of way. Bulls of all other breeds (again over the age of ten months and including continental dairy breeds) are also banned from such fields unless accompanied by cows or heifers.
The general position in relation to dogs on Rights of Way and the power to restrict dogs on public footpaths, at certain times. There are clear messages for dog walkers on both their rights and responsibilities when out in the countryside. Natural England’s recently updated Countryside Code sets out the responsibilities both for visitors to the countryside and land managers. It makes clear that visitors need to make sure dogs are kept under control around livestock and on open access land dogs must be put on a lead around livestock. Between 1 March and 31July a dog must be on a lead on open access land, regardless of livestock being present. This is a legal requirement. Land managers must warn visitors of any unseen hazards including livestock movements as well and not keeping animals that are known to be dangerous in places where there is public access. Local authorities already have powers through Public Spaces Protection Orders to place restrictions on dogs.
The role of public bodies
Defra and its statutory adviser, Natural England, are responsible for setting out the legislation framework and producing guidance for the management of the public rights of way network. Guidance is already available for the diverting of public rights of way in accordance with the Highways Act 1980 however as part of the rights of way reforms package we are taking forward we will look at how we can make this more accessible.
Local authorities are responsible for the maintenance and management of public rights of way.
Thank you for your letter of 20 January with regard to the inquest into the death of Mi- chael John Holmes. Firstly, may I say I am very sorry to hear of this tragic incident and my deepest sympathies go to Mr Holmes’s family. I would also like to apologise for the time take to respond.
While many thousands of people enjoy the countryside and use the extensive network of footpaths, bridleways, and public access land every day, activities such as walking through or near cattle can be hazardous. Such incidents across the public rights of way network are rare however we do understand the concerns about ongoing public safety.
Defra is responsible for rights of way policy and this response sets out Defra’s response to the points you have addressed to this department. I note that you have also copied your report to the Health and Safety Executive who have responded to you separately in light of their responsibilities for providing guidance to farmers, landowners and other live- stock keepers about the assessment of risks posed by livestock being kept in a field with a public right of way.
MATTERS OF CONCERN
Considerations regarding the field where the fatality occurred
We want people to be able to enjoy the countryside, but it is vital that people and animals are kept safe and it is important that there is information available to members of the pub- lic about the risks posed by livestock in a field to which the public has a right of access and that landowners are aware of their responsibilities.
The Highways Act 1980 gives powers for changes to be made to the public rights of way network including diversions where it is in the public interest. We are aware of the appli- cation made to the local authority under Section 119 of the Act to have the public right of way in question diverted to mitigate the risk of such incidents in future.
As you pointed out in your report, objections to the diversion have been received there- fore an application has been made to the Planning Inspectorate which is currently pro- cessing the application and will consider carefully any representations and objections re- ceived in accordance with standard procedures before making a decision on behalf of the Secretary of State.
We are aware of calls for a change in legislation to enable temporary path diversion or- ders however there are no plans to introduce such regulations at this time.
However, we are committed to implementing a number of rights of way reforms which in- clude giving landowners the statutory right to apply to a local authority for a public path order to permanently extinguish or divert a footpath or bridleway where it is in the public interest to do so.
Section 59 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 bans bulls of seven recognised dairy breeds (i.e. Ayrshire, British Friesian, British Holstein, Dairy Shorthorn, Guernsey, Jersey and Kerry) that are over the age of ten months in all circumstances from being at large in fields crossed by public rights of way. Bulls of all other breeds (again over the age of ten months and including continental dairy breeds) are also banned from such fields unless accompanied by cows or heifers.
The general position in relation to dogs on Rights of Way and the power to restrict dogs on public footpaths, at certain times. There are clear messages for dog walkers on both their rights and responsibilities when out in the countryside. Natural England’s recently updated Countryside Code sets out the responsibilities both for visitors to the countryside and land managers. It makes clear that visitors need to make sure dogs are kept under control around livestock and on open access land dogs must be put on a lead around livestock. Between 1 March and 31July a dog must be on a lead on open access land, regardless of livestock being present. This is a legal requirement. Land managers must warn visitors of any unseen hazards including livestock movements as well and not keeping animals that are known to be dangerous in places where there is public access. Local authorities already have powers through Public Spaces Protection Orders to place restrictions on dogs.
The role of public bodies
Defra and its statutory adviser, Natural England, are responsible for setting out the legislation framework and producing guidance for the management of the public rights of way network. Guidance is already available for the diverting of public rights of way in accordance with the Highways Act 1980 however as part of the rights of way reforms package we are taking forward we will look at how we can make this more accessible.
Local authorities are responsible for the maintenance and management of public rights of way.
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 1 October 2020 I commenced an investigation into the death of Michael John Holmes, aged 57. The investigation concluded at the end of the Inquest on 18 January 2023. The conclusion of the Inquest was Accidental Death.
Circumstances of the Death
On Tuesday 29 September 2020, Michael John Holmes and his wife were walking dogs belonging to other family members on leads in a field at Hollinghurst Farm, Netherton, Wakefield. Cattle in the field approached them, knocked them down and trampled them, causing serious injuries. Emergency treatment was provided by a doctor who arrived by helicopter. Mr Holmes could not be revived and was pronounced dead at 12:56 that day at the scene of the incident.
Copies Sent To
: The Ramblers’ Association National Farmers Union Country Land Owners Association The Access and Rights of Byways and Bridleways Trust Open Spaces Society Rights of Way Review Committee
ITV Reporter
BBC Reporter
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Review CCTV monitoring SIA licence requirements
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Unregulated recreation safety
Establish standard for event healthcare services
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Unregulated recreation safety
Mandatory Ambulance Liaison Officer at events
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Unregulated recreation safety
Consider funding arrangements for police services
Manchester Arena Inquiry
Environmental policy funding
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.