Recurring concern
Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 21 Nov 2013•Latest report 6 Mar 2026
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
- Individual concerns
- 57
- Date range
- 2013–2026
- Stated actions
- 90
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
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.
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.
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to maintain fencing and walls separating the public footpath from the railway line
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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.5
-
Action
Review active fencing upgrade proposals for both sides of the incident section.
Stated by Network Rail -
Action
Deliver planned fencing and boundary repairs in the incident section, restoring smaller stone-wall sections and replacing failed larger sections with lineside fencing.
Stated by Network Rail -
Action
Complete an extensive lineside fencing upgrade north of the location between Spittal and Berwick.
Stated by Network Rail
-
Action
Conduct a site walk-through between Scremerston and Spittal to assess boundary robustness.
Stated by Network Rail -
Action
Plan further works to improve boundary robustness between Scremerston and Spittal.
Stated by Network Rail
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of a physical barrier at the end of platform three
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 concernsEach 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.1
-
Position
Responsibility for barriers and fencing preventing track access lies with Network Rail as part of the station infrastructure.
Stated by Arriva Rail North Limited
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of natural barriers at the edge of the cliff at Hells Mouth
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 concernsEach 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.1
-
Position
Vegetation cannot feasibly prevent cliff-edge access and could encourage visitors into more dangerous positions, increasing accidental trip and fall risks.
Stated by The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to prevent people from easily crossing the walkway barrier
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Inadequate physical barriers at the railway access gate
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to provide a barrier that prevents or deters climbing onto the bridge 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 concernsEach 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.1
-
Action
Commission and complete a stakeholder-informed review of preventative measures for Orwell Bridge.
Stated by National Highways
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
Additional solid parapets or panels will not be installed because their weight and wind effects could significantly compromise bridge stability.
Stated by National Highways
-
Position
Toe holds will not be installed because they could encourage climbing, create workforce safety risks, and have unproven effectiveness.
Stated by National Highways
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of rails or other effective barriers segregating drinkers from the canal
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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.1
-
Action
Complete a site safety review and risk assessment covering segregation, rescue equipment, self-rescue, lighting and signage at Victoria Quays.
Stated by Canal & River Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Existing barriers adequately exclude people from the waterway edge, and the basin’s lighting is considered sufficient for its intended operational use.
Stated by Canal & River Trust
-
Concerns raised1
Inadequate restriction of public access to the railway track from the steps accessing footbridge 57
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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 shorter palisade pales on the lower flight to connect with the boundary fence and raise the parapet to at least two metres.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited -
Action
Raise the upper-flight stepped parapet with engineering brick and bullnose units to prevent scaling and access behind the lower-flight palisade.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to physically modify an easily accessible wall to prevent dangerous use as a seating area
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 concernsEach 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.4
-
Action
Install hostile planting to make access to the Level 3 corner parapet walls more difficult.
Stated by Hammerson PLC -
Action
Install hostile planting around lower parapet walls on Levels 3 and 3A where potential falls exceed five metres.
Stated by Hammerson PLC -
Action
Install vehicle stopping barriers beside relevant lower parapet walls to prevent vehicles being used as steps.
Stated by Hammerson PLC
-
Action
Continue exploring the feasibility of raising parapet walls on Levels 3 and 3A, including required planning and building-regulations approvals.
Stated by Hammerson PLC
-
Concerns raised1
Failure of after-hours station and track access barriers to prevent access
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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.1
-
Action
Install barriers to separate rail infrastructure where access is unnecessary, including fencing SouthEastern infrastructure from LOROL infrastructure at the station.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
Station access and management are outside the infrastructure owner's management because the station is operated by the train operator.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
-
Position
Responsibility for station access information and practices rests with the station operator, which provided the relevant clarification.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Data last updated 7 September 2026