First reported 21 Nov 2013•Latest report 6 Mar 2026
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes barrier height, climbability, coverage, replacement and measurement failures where guarding is intended to prevent access to a dangerous drop or area.
Not included
Clinical bed or chair fall-prevention controls
Vehicle collision barriers
Security controls with no physical-injury hazard
Reports
46
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
57
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2013–2026
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
90
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Network Rail14
Cornwall Council3
Durham County Council3
National Highways3
Canal & River Trust2
Hammerson PLC2
Isle of Wight Council2
Recipient name withheld2
The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty2
Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable Trust1
Arriva Rail North Limited1
Bedford Borough Council1
British Transport Police1
Calderdale Borough Council1
Chesterfield Borough Council1
Rail infrastructure manager14
English unitary authority11
English county council5
Private limited company5
English metropolitan district council4
Venue4
Type not available4
Ministerial department3
National road infrastructure body3
Registered charity3
Train operating company3
English district council2
Inland waterway body2
London borough council2
Public limited company2
Concerns and responses across reports
Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
Suffolk
Concerns raised1
Failure to protect mobility scooter users from falls at unbarriered promenade edges
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.7
Action
Complete new and updated risk assessments for Felixstowe Promenade, including consideration of risks to mobility scooter users.
Stated by East Suffolk CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
Action
Commission a full disability access audit of the promenade and surrounding area from a Centre for Accessible Environments-accredited assessor.
Stated by East Suffolk CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
Action
Monitor beach levels at promenade road entrances and ramps for 12 months to inform further safety measures.
Stated by East Suffolk CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
Action
Renew existing hazard line markings along the promenade.
Stated by East Suffolk CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
Action
Investigate the effectiveness and practicality of seasonal or more frequent releveling of beach sand and shingle.
Stated by East Suffolk CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
Action
Install signage at locations where beach levels fluctuate and create a fall risk.
Stated by East Suffolk CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
Action
Continue monitoring the structural integrity of existing barriers and maintain them.
Stated by East Suffolk CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Preventing mobility scooter users from falling asleep is largely outside the Council’s control, limiting further responsive safety work.
Stated by East Suffolk CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
Mobility scooter leasing companies, medical professionals, families and individuals should identify and address risks of falling asleep while using mobility scooters.
Stated by East Suffolk CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised1
Lack of a physical barrier preventing access to the hazardous bottom of the weir
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Install a temporary downstream boom while reviewing options for the site, including possible weir removal.
Stated by Environment AgencyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 February 2024.
Action
Review all site options, including removal of the legacy weir.
Stated by Environment AgencyStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 February 2024.
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Concerns raised1
Lack of railing protection alongside harbour and pier sheer drops
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
Statutory health and safety enforcement for dock premises falls outside the council’s powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Stated by Cornwall CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for statutory enforcement concerning safety at the harbour’s dock premises.
Stated by Cornwall CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Existing railings, signage and lifebuoy aids are considered sufficient to address harbour safety risks.
Stated by Porthleven Harbour & Dock CompanyExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
HSE has no regulatory powers over harbour areas without work activity or risks increased by festivals and other public events.
Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton
Concerns raised1
Lack of physical measures preventing access over or around bridge railings and jumping to the carriageway
This report raised 6 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Add the location to the South East Network Needs list for future funding prioritisation.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 October 2022.
Action
Apply for future funding for a study into preventing future suicide events at the location.
Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 October 2022.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
National Highways, as bridge asset owner, must essentially consider the required action, while the County Council can collaborate on potential solutions.
Stated by Hampshire County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The existing 1.65-metre parapet complies with current standards, and enclosing the walkway is not considered appropriate because enclosed spaces can increase antisocial behaviour.
Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Further measures, including CCTV or physical barriers, depend on a funded study establishing their suitability and securing future funding.
Stated by National HighwaysUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Cumbria
Concerns raised1
Failure of the low wall to provide effective protection from the significant drop into the river
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Work with residents to support measures reducing the risk of accidents from the wall.
Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 September 2022.
Action
Take appropriate enforcement action if agreement on reducing the risk is not reached.
Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 September 2022.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Primary responsibility for action regarding the wall lies with property owners fronting the private street.
Stated by Cumbria County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
North London
Concerns raised1
Inadequate fencing preventing ingress to the railway track
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Repair damage to the Downside access gate and minor fencing defects.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 September 2022.
Action
Replace the chain-link fencing section with palisade fencing through the Route’s work bank.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 September 2022.
Action
Invest in physical measures to prevent unauthorised railway access, including platform-end barriers, mid-platform station fences and lineside fencing.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 September 2022.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
The stream lighting and railway-fence adequacy matters concern assets APPCT does not own or operate and therefore do not require action by APPCT.
Stated by Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable TrustOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Lighting on venue grounds is Alexandra Palace’s responsibility, while railway fencing is Network Rail’s responsibility.
Stated by Thames Water Utilities LimitedRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The route by which access to the railway occurred is inconclusive, and fencing nearest the incident was palisade rather than chain link.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Quarterly inspections and remediation under the boundary fencing standard are considered sufficient for fence-line maintenance.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
Failure to prevent pedestrians climbing over the bridge parapet
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Complete high-risk-location review, feasibility study and options appraisal to identify a preferred suicide-prevention measure for Newton Cap Viaduct.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
Action
Undertake detailed design and approval assessments for a potential additional parapet fence, including structural, traffic, heritage and planning considerations.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
Action
Source an external consultant specialising in designing out suicide to progress viaduct prevention measures.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 September 2021.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
Incomplete and gapped wire fencing along the viaduct parapet wall
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Provide platform-end gates and fencing at higher-risk locations to restrict unauthorised access to the railway.
Stated by London North Eastern Railway LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2021.
Action
Contact Network Rail to seek a joint site visit assuring that the fencing meets rail-industry standards.
Stated by London North Eastern Railway LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 January 2021.
Action
Liaise with stakeholders and planning authorities to consider installing wire-mesh fencing along the viaduct parapet.
Stated by Network RailStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 January 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Network Rail is generally responsible for platform end and boundary fencing beyond LNER’s day-to-day station management.
Stated by London North Eastern Railway LimitedRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised1
Failure to prevent pedestrian access to Busway lanes
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Entire-length fencing cannot be installed because it would be prohibitively expensive and is not considered necessary for busway infrastructure.
Stated by Luton Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
Unauthorised access cannot be prevented along the Busway’s full 8.3-mile length.
Stated by Luton Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Surrey
Concerns raised1
Lack of physical boundaries preventing public access to railway tracks
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Deploy Rail Safety Accredited Security Officers to patrol for trespass and antisocial behaviour and target hotspot locations with partner agencies.
Stated by First MTR South Western Trains LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 April 2020.
Action
Add extra platform markings and barriers at Ashford station to further deter trespass.
Stated by Network RailStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 April 2020.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes barrier height, climbability, coverage, replacement and measurement failures where guarding is intended to prevent access to a dangerous drop or area.
