Unreliable ambulance access through road closures and diversions
First to latest report 23 Mar 2016 — 2 Oct 2018
Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
3
Stated actions linked to this concern
1
What this concern includes
Includes failures in arrangements that enable ambulance crews to reach emergencies through or around road closures and diversions, including route planning, alternative access, emergency authority to cross closure signs, dissemination of that authority and operational briefing or escalation.
What is not included
Excludes general ambulance attendance delays, hospital handover delays and ambulance-capacity shortages where road closures, diversions or emergency crossing arrangements are not the deficient control.
Excludes ordinary road maintenance, traffic congestion and road-safety hazards unrelated to preserving ambulance access during an emergency.
Excludes access failures at the destination premises after ambulance crews have reached the relevant area.
Excludes generic emergency-service communication or training deficiencies unless they directly impair ambulance access through road closures or diversions.
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
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Leeds City Council1
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust1
English metropolitan district council1
NHS trust1
Reports and published responses 2 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised2
Failure to ensure ambulance crews understand emergency authority to cross road closure signs
Failure to maintain emergency vehicle access during public events
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)
Continually review event road closures to ensure they remain appropriate, minimal and safe.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)
Ambulance crews do not need event-morning briefings because Emergency Operations Centre directions provide the most appropriate response information at the time.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)
Existing event management plans, designated crossing points and trained marshals sufficiently address emergency vehicle access and temporary event stoppages.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)
Replacing road-closure signs could weaken their prohibition and create safety risks; existing signs should remain under current legislation with controlled emergency access measures.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Teesside
Concerns raised1
Road closures and diversions affecting ambulance crew access
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.