Recurring concern

Failure to resolve closure or rationalisation of hazardous railway crossings

First to latest report 19 Jun 2018 — 23 Jun 2021

Reports that mention this concern: 2
Times this concern has been raised: 3
Stated actions linked to this concern: 7

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the dedicated process for considering, deciding and progressing closure or rationalisation of hazardous railway or foot crossings, including unclear or insufficient consideration by relevant authorities, dependence on stakeholder support that prevents action, and prolonged absence of a decision after serious risks or recommended controls have been identified.

What is not included

Excludes physical crossing controls such as barriers, warning signs, lights, CCTV or fencing when the specific deficiency is not the closure or rationalisation decision process.
Excludes general railway track-access, trespass or crossing-operation failures where closure or rationalisation is not the shared unsafe condition.
Excludes ordinary local-authority consultation or disagreement unrelated to resolving a materially hazardous railway crossing.
Excludes failures to implement remedial works after a closure or rationalisation decision has already been made.

Trends

Reports over time

Reports mentioning this concern, over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Broxtowe Borough Council1

Derbyshire County Council1

Erewash Borough Council1

Network Rail1

Nottinghamshire County Council1

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

23 Jun2021
Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised2
1. Dependence on local authority support for closing or rationalising crossings
2. Failure to reduce or rationalise the number of crossings
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses

Derbyshire County Council
Erewash Borough Council
NetworkRail
Nottinghamshire County Council
Stated actions 5
1. Erewash Borough Council
  Submitted a consultation response supporting proposals to improve crossing safety and accessibility for disabled and non-disabled users.
2. Derbyshire County Council
  Work with other agencies to improve safety across Derbyshire and help prevent fatalities within the Council’s legal powers.
3. Nottinghamshire County Council
  Maintain regular dialogue with Network Rail about level-crossing diversions, bridges, future management and safer access to non-operational land.
1. Nottinghamshire County Council
  Continue Countryside Access Team contact and collaboration with Network Rail’s Liabilities Team on public-highway rights across railway land.
2. Nottinghamshire County Council
  Divert public rights of way at specified Nottinghamshire crossings to remove or avoid at-grade railway crossings.
Respondent positions 4
1. Nottinghamshire County Council
  The Authority cannot unilaterally close or rationalise crossings because statutory consultation and objection procedures restrict its available powers.
  Unable to act
1. NetworkRail
  Previous changes, including potential closures, to level crossings near Attenborough Nature Reserve could not be implemented because of strong local opposition.
  Unable to act
2. Nottinghamshire County Council
  The assertion that local authorities opposed Network Rail’s efforts to rationalise crossings is incorrect in respect of Nottinghamshire County Council.
  Disputes the concern
3. Nottinghamshire County Council
  Network Rail is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the safety of the national rail network, including level crossings.
  Redirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Heather Frances Page · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

On 7 October 2020, Heather Frances Page stepped in front of a train and died in the resulting collision. The report identified concerns about pedestrian crossings requiring people to walk on the tracks, a high number of fatalities, ease of access to the track, and difficulties reducing or rationalising crossings because of local authority opposition.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Dependence on local authority support for closing or rationalising crossings
Wider context from the report
“Evidence was heard regarding the section of track adjacent to the Attenborough Nature Reserve. I noted the following issues of concern in relation to this section of track:- (1) There are a number of pedestrian crossings along this short stretch of track which involve pedestrians having to walk on the tracks to cross to the other side. (2) There has been a high number of fatalities along this short section of track (seven in as many years). (3) The nature of that section of track is such that it increases the risks of completed suicide due to the ease of access at multiple points and its proximity to a very popular beauty spot. (4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities. (5) Support or opposition from local authorities and councils will respectively increase or reduce the prospects of the risks inherent in that stretch of track being reduced. In the absence of support from local authorities and councils, Network Rail will be less likely to make an application to close or rationalise crossings along this section of track, given the known opposition from some persons living near, or using, the crossings. If an application is made, it will be less likely to be granted in the absence of support from the relevant local authorities and councils. ”
Source location
Heather Frances Page · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to reduce or rationalise the number of crossings
Wider context from the report
“Evidence was heard regarding the section of track adjacent to the Attenborough Nature Reserve. I noted the following issues of concern in relation to this section of track:- (1) There are a number of pedestrian crossings along this short stretch of track which involve pedestrians having to walk on the tracks to cross to the other side. (2) There has been a high number of fatalities along this short section of track (seven in as many years). (3) The nature of that section of track is such that it increases the risks of completed suicide due to the ease of access at multiple points and its proximity to a very popular beauty spot. (4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities. (5) Support or opposition from local authorities and councils will respectively increase or reduce the prospects of the risks inherent in that stretch of track being reduced. In the absence of support from local authorities and councils, Network Rail will be less likely to make an application to close or rationalise crossings along this section of track, given the known opposition from some persons living near, or using, the crossings. If an application is made, it will be less likely to be granted in the absence of support from the relevant local authorities and councils. ”
Source location
Heather Frances Page · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Submitted a consultation response supporting proposals to improve crossing safety and accessibility for disabled and non-disabled users.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As part of the Level Crossing Closures Programme, the Council were invited to respond to Network Rail’s Equality Stakeholder Engagement Topic Guide (consultants ████████ had been appointed by Network Rail to undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) to investigate the impact of any works affecting the crossing). On behalf of the Council, I produced the response looking at the various issues from the perspective of Planning Policy. In the Council’s submission (Appendix B), support was demonstrated for any proposal, including a replacement footbridge, which would help to improve both the safety for crossing users as well as increased accessibility at the crossing for disabled and non-disabled users.”

Source location
2021-0213-Response-from-Erewash-Borough-Council_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Work with other agencies to improve safety across Derbyshire and help prevent fatalities within the Council’s legal powers.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We are aware of the report undertaken by British Transport Police in November 2020 and as a local authority we will do whatever is within our legal power to assist in the prevention of fatalities however it will take a coordinated approach from the various local councils, Network Rail and the Highways Authority in order to achieve this. Derbyshire County Council as the relevant Highway Authority for Derbyshire will always work with other agencies to improve safety across the County.”

Source location
2021-0213-Response-from-Derbyshire-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Maintain regular dialogue with Network Rail about level-crossing diversions, bridges, future management and safer access to non-operational land.

Verbatim wording from the response
“6. Additional to the above, NCC and Network Rail are in regular dialogue regarding level”

Source location
2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Continue Countryside Access Team contact and collaboration with Network Rail’s Liabilities Team on public-highway rights across railway land.

Verbatim wording from the response
“7. NCC’s Countryside Access Team has regular contact and a good working relationship with Network Rail’s Liabilities Team; this being the team within Network Rail with responsibility for the stopping up and diversion of public highway rights across railway lines and operational property. As part of this, NCC are currently discussing a number of at grade crossings in the County regarding their future management, as well as discussing opportunities for access on their non-operational land, which would increase public safety. Any proposals arising from this would, however, be subject to the formal legally prescribed consultation referred to above and thus may potentially be unable to be taken forward due to objections from highway users.”

Source location
2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 28 June 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Divert public rights of way at specified Nottinghamshire crossings to remove or avoid at-grade railway crossings.

Verbatim wording from the response
“8. Notwithstanding the above, it has been possible to obtain public support to take forward a number of safety improvements in recent years, and several crossings in Nottinghamshire have been diverted by NCC and bridged by Network Rail to remove at grade crossings over operational lines. For example:”

Source location
2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 28 June 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The Authority cannot unilaterally close or rationalise crossings because statutory consultation and objection procedures restrict its available powers.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3. Closure of level crossings can be achieved under 4 separate Acts of Parliament¹, with only the Highways Act powers available to the Local Highway Authority. The prescribed process which Highway Authorities must follow in order to divert or extinguish certain minor public highways² involve the making of an Order and formal public consultation. Should objections be received and maintained to the diversion or extinguishment, an Order cannot be brought into effect but must be referred to the Secretary of State for determination which often necessitates the holding of a local public inquiry, though it is possible, at the Secretary of State’s discretion, for such an Order to be determined following a hearing or, rarely, to be dealt with by an exchange of written representations.”

Source location
2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Previous changes, including potential closures, to level crossings near Attenborough Nature Reserve could not be implemented because of strong local opposition.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As the assistant coroner has noted, we’ve attempted to make changes to (and potentially close) a number of level crossings in the vicinity of the Attenborough Nature Reserve in the past. However, we recognise that there was a strong local opposition to our plans at the time and we weren’t able to make the changes.”

Source location
2021-0213-Response-from-Network-Rail_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
The assertion that local authorities opposed Network Rail’s efforts to rationalise crossings is incorrect in respect of Nottinghamshire County Council.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1. NCC is grateful for sight of the Assistant Coroner’s report relating to Heather Frances PAGE and would be happy to attend any future inquests if it can provide information of assistance to the coroner. NCC is concerned that, in the report, it is stated that evidence was heard that “(4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities”. As the Assistant Coroner will be aware, NCC was not invited to be an interested party at the inquest and was provided with no opportunity to answer this assertion which is, for the reasons set out below, incorrect.”

Source location
2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 2021
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Network Rail is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the safety of the national rail network, including level crossings.

Verbatim wording from the response
“B. The operation, maintenance and improvement of a safe national rail network (including level crossings), is the responsibility of Network Rail, with oversight and funding specifically provided to them by the Office of Rail and Road for improving safety at such crossings.”

Source location
2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 2021
Open published response
19 Jun2018
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to resolve the safety of the foot crossing
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response

Network Rail
Stated actions 2
1. Network Rail
  Continue working with stakeholders to develop a closure proposal, secure funding and progress statutory closure arrangements for Lindsells Level Crossing.
2. Network Rail
  Install audible alarms and larger-lensed miniature stop lights at Lindsells Level Crossing through the planned area-wide programme.
Respondent positions 1
1. Network Rail
  Closing a level crossing carrying a public right of way is outside the respondent’s power and requires a statutory process with stakeholders.
  Outside remit
AI-generated summary

Andrew Thomas HANAHOE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Andrew Thomas HANAHOE died after walking onto Lindsells Foot Crossing at Biggleswade Railway Station as a train approached on 29 December 2017. Concerns were raised about the crossing’s safety, including its exposure to high-speed trains, inadequate fencing and the absence of measures such as repeater lights or trespass deterrence; the report states that the risk of a future death remained.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to resolve the safety of the foot crossing
Wider context from the report
““(1) The Post Incident Site Report states: “Ideally this foot crossing should be closed. It crosses railway line that have trains regularly passing over it at speeds up to 125 mph. “Biggleswade, like many towns, is growing in size and any future development in this area will bring housing closer to the crossing. “Would the crossing be installed today? “If the crossing is a recognised “foot path” then an enclosed foot bridge, to prevent items being thrown at or dropped on trains, should be installed, together with suitable fencing on both sides of the line adjacent to it, to prevent simple access to the tracks. “Currently there is just “post and wire” fencing immediately next to the adjacent railway structure... “If the crossing is to be retained, then “repeater lights” should be installed on either side of the crossing, so that users on the crossing can be made aware that a train is approaching”. “Additionally trespass deterrence “Pyramid matting” that has been approved for use by Network Rail ... or similar should be installed on either side of the crossing, to deter simple access to the railway. Additional fencing is also needed between the existing line side fencing and the trespass deterrence to prevent access to the embankment.” I understand that no decision has been made since this Report was made in January 2018, yet the risk of a future death remains. ”
Source location
Andrew Thomas HANAHOE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Continue working with stakeholders to develop a closure proposal, secure funding and progress statutory closure arrangements for Lindsells Level Crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response
“It is not within Network Rail’s power to simply close a level crossing that carries a public right of way and this requires liaison with stakeholders, including the relevant local authorities, to progress the necessary statutory process. Closing Lindsells Level Crossing would we believe require a large and very expensive ramped bridleway bridge to divert the existing rights of way.”

Source location
2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2018
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Install audible alarms and larger-lensed miniature stop lights at Lindsells Level Crossing through the planned area-wide programme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“While the option for closing the level crossing are being pursued, our risk assessment is reviewed regularly to identify if there are any additional mitigation measures that can be implemented to make the crossing safer.”

Source location
2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2018
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Closing a level crossing carrying a public right of way is outside the respondent’s power and requires a statutory process with stakeholders.

Verbatim wording from the response
“It is not within Network Rail’s power to simply close a level crossing that carries a public right of way and this requires liaison with stakeholders, including the relevant local authorities, to progress the necessary statutory process. Closing Lindsells Level Crossing would we believe require a large and very expensive ramped bridleway bridge to divert the existing rights of way.”

Source location
2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2018
Open published response