Recurring concern
Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sites
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 4 Mar 2014•Latest report 6 Mar 2026
What this concern includes
Includes failures of dedicated controls intended to prevent or restrict public access to hazardous or officially closed sites, including fencing, gates, locks, barriers, security arrangements, access monitoring and timely implementation of closure measures where the site is not intended for public access.
Not included
- Excludes ordinary public access to sites that are open and intended for public use, even where general safety measures are needed.
- Excludes the underlying drowning, fall, electrical or other site hazard when no failure to control public access is identified.
- Excludes general site-security or perimeter-maintenance deficiencies without a hazardous or restricted-site public-access context.
- Excludes failures limited to warning information, route guidance or signage where access prevention or restriction is not the shared unsafe condition.
- Reports
- 16
- Individual concerns
- 17
- Date range
- 2014–2026
- Stated actions
- 27
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 prevent access to the railway line through adequately secure fencing
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.3
-
Action
Install additional meshing and netting at the location to deter climbing.
Stated by Network Rail -
Action
Review trespass risk around the area and identify the bridge wing wall and track-level safety rail for further mitigation.
Stated by Network Rail -
Action
Investigate whether attaching mesh to the bridge’s tubular handrail or safety rail would improve security.
Stated by Network Rail
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
-
Position
The line speed at this location is 110mph, not 125mph, although trains still travel at high speed.
Stated by Network Rail
-
Position
Current boundary measures meet the reasonably practicable obligation, and no further assessment is triggered because there is no prior evidence of trespass.
Stated by Network Rail -
Position
Replacing all fencing with palisade is not reasonably practicable given the scale of the railway network and local risk assessment requirements.
Stated by Network Rail
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to prevent public access to live rails at ground level
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.3
-
Action
Continue developing reasonably practicable safety solutions for the ground-level conductor rail system.
Stated by Network Rail -
Action
Install platform-end gates and anti-trespass measures at more than 50 South East route stations, with works already completed at 30 locations.
Stated by Network Rail -
Action
Improve fencing at higher-risk locations through a programme including £800,000 of work due for completion by April 2019.
Stated by Network Rail
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Converting or replacing the ground-level conductor rail is not reasonably practicable because of the railway system’s complexity and cost.
Stated by Network Rail
-
Concerns raised1
Inadequate deterrence and hindrance provided by railway access gates and fencing
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
Deliver over 600 metres of fencing and upgrade nearby gates to deter unauthorised railway access.
Stated by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
-
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
Lack of measures preventing public access to the disused railway bridge
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 prevent public access to the officially closed site
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.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Data last updated 7 September 2026