Recipient

Foresight Group

First report 30 Apr 2021•Latest report 30 Apr 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 4
Stated actions: 1

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found

1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Foresight Group linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

30 Apr2021
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised5
1. Lack of on-site supervision at a remote site
2. Insufficient prevention of access to the site via the adjacent weir
3. Failure to protect deep water channels from falls
1. Trespassing by young people onto the site
2. Failure to take effective action to reduce the risk of harm from child trespass
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Operational and safety decisions, including preventing recurrence, are the responsibility of Yorkshire Hydropower Limited rather than Foresight.
  Redirects responsibility
1. Position
  Foresight disputes having controlled Yorkshire Hydropower Limited’s operations or constrained its director’s decisions regarding site safety.
  Disputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Eliot Peter Burton · 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

Eliot Peter Burton, aged 15, was found drowned at an unmanned hydroelectric plant after entering the site as a trespasser and falling into an outlet channel. The concerns included repeated trespassing by young people, deep uncovered channels with limited or no edge protection, difficult access to the site via the adjacent weir, and limited effective action to reduce the risks to children.

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. The report was sent to Foresight Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of on-site supervision at a remote site
Wider context from the report
“1. The site is always unmanned. It is located in a remote area ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Foresight Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient prevention of access to the site via the adjacent weir
Wider context from the report
“4. Despite perimeter fencing, it is known that one route for children to gain entry to the site is by crossing the River Calder at the Kirkthorpe weir adjacent to the site. There are few, if any impediments to prevent access to the weir from the river bank opposite the site. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Foresight Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to protect deep water channels from falls
Wider context from the report
“3. There are deep uncovered channels on the site to conduct water through the facility. It is foreseeable that a trespasser would be in a precarious situation if they were to fall into the water, as Elliot Burton did. Many of the channels are uncovered, and /or have no edge protection. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Foresight Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Trespassing by young people onto the site
Wider context from the report
“2. It is known that in the years 2018-2021, young people have trespassed onto the site. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Foresight Group; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to take effective action to reduce the risk of harm from child trespass
Wider context from the report
“5. Despite the passage of some 21 months since Elliot Burton’s death, little effective action has been taken to reduce the risk of children being harmed if they are tempted to trespass on this site. ”
Open source report
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
Operational and safety decisions, including preventing recurrence, are the responsibility of Yorkshire Hydropower Limited rather than Foresight.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Such operational decisions were, and are, decisions for YHL to make, entirely independent of Foresight, as these companies have separate legal personas. Any person holding a director role by virtue of Foresight's Investment Advisory Services contract is an employee of Foresight's business and a director of YHL. Any such individual is fulfilling two distinct roles, which are clearly delineated and do not afford Foresight any control over YHL, including how any director should have exercised their discretion as a director. Clearly any director has a statutory obligation to act only in the best interests of the company and not to vote on matters in which they had a conflict of interest.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Foresight-Group-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 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
Foresight disputes having controlled Yorkshire Hydropower Limited’s operations or constrained its director’s decisions regarding site safety.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As a responsible company, and in light of your concerns raised in the Regulation 28 report, we have reviewed the recordings of the evidence given to identify any steps required on Foresight's part. However we have identified nothing indicating that Foresight had control of YHL's operations, or that ████████ role with Foresight dictated or constrained his actions as a director of YHL.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Foresight-Group-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021
Open published response

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised5

Lack of on-site supervision at a remote site

Insufficient prevention of access to the site via the adjacent weir

Failure to protect deep water channels from falls

Trespassing by young people onto the site

Failure to take effective action to reduce the risk of harm from child trespass

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

Respondent positions 2