Recipient

Yorkshire Hydropower Limited

First report 30 Apr 2021•Latest report 30 Apr 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited 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: 5
Stated actions: 11

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

11stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Yorkshire Hydropower Limited 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.
Actions described in response 9
1. Action
  Support procurement and continue necessary design and procurement input while facilitating construction of the riverside barrier.
  Stated in progress
2. Action
  Install galvanised steel fans and associated fencing to block access routes around the outlet channel, fish pass, downstream outlet and escape ladder.
  Stated planned
3. Action
  Add fence returns, mesh infills, warning signs, internal barriers, secure gates and practicable channel covers to deter unauthorised access.
  Stated completed
1. Action
  Install a hinged, lockable plate on the penstock-actuator access ladder to prevent unauthorised climbing.
  Stated planned
2. Action
  Review the summer manned-security presence for deterrence, incidents, guard safety, operating times and interaction with other measures.
  Stated planned
3. Action
  Enhance CCTV coverage and resolution, monitor it continuously, and improve the PA system for remotely issued trespass warnings.
  Stated completed
4. Action
  Commission a detailed options report and develop an agreed design for a barrier at the weir and sluice-gate interface.
  Stated completed
5. Action
  Trial a manned security presence daily from 10am to 8pm during summer months.
  Stated in progress
6. Action
  Extend the screen-walkway access, relocate the existing end handrail and fit additional mesh decking over the screenings-channel end.
  Stated in progress
Respondent positions 3
1. Position
  Covering the channels is not reasonably practicable because flooding, debris, maintenance access and potential escape hazards would introduce greater risks.
  Unable to act
1. Position
  The weir and sluice gates are not owned or controlled, and unilateral action to install barriers there is outside the authority available.
  Outside remit
2. Position
  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council leads construction of the barrier at the weir and sluice gates through completion.
  Redirects responsibility
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 Yorkshire Hydropower Limited; 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 Yorkshire Hydropower Limited; 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 Yorkshire Hydropower Limited; 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 Yorkshire Hydropower Limited; 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 Yorkshire Hydropower Limited; 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 action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Support procurement and continue necessary design and procurement input while facilitating construction of the riverside barrier.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4.4 YHL are supporting WMDC in the procurement process for the steel works while the planning application is being reviewed.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 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
Install galvanised steel fans and associated fencing to block access routes around the outlet channel, fish pass, downstream outlet and escape ladder.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3.12 With reference to access along the capping beam which encloses the outlet channel, we have had to balance the need for any structures to be robust so as to resist flood impact and also to be reasonably accessible for maintenance (for example through the use of hand tools). We will be installing a galvanised steel fan, bolted to the capping beam and spanning out over the outlet channel.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 4 May 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
Add fence returns, mesh infills, warning signs, internal barriers, secure gates and practicable channel covers to deter unauthorised access.

Verbatim wording from the response
“2.3 In relation to access from the landside perimeter, we have added further fence panel returns and signage, we have also now had expert advice as to the use of galvanised metal spiked fans. Where practicable these will be used to deter persons from climbing around the edge of perimeter fence panels where they open on to the river and accessing ledges within the Facility. The objective is to make access difficult and unattractive to the Facility as a whole, and within it in relation to those areas where there are drops to deep and potentially fast flowing water. However, these measures must not create debris traps that import significant risk for those required to then remove debris and maintain the structures.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 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
Install a hinged, lockable plate on the penstock-actuator access ladder to prevent unauthorised climbing.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3.15 Another area which has had interest from trespassers is the high level bridge across the intake penstock which provides operational access to the penstock actuator. Access to the bridge is via a vertical ladder. We will be installing a hinged, and lockable plate, fitted to the ladder to prevent it being climbed by unauthorised persons.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 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
Review the summer manned-security presence for deterrence, incidents, guard safety, operating times and interaction with other measures.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1.4 We will review the effectiveness of this at the end of the summer. This review will include consideration of any interactions between the guard and potential or actual trespassers, the personal safety of the guard, whether trespass was deterred and/or incidents prevented and whether the times were aligned with the periods of activity in the locality. The effectiveness and/or necessity of having such a security presence will also be viewed in the context of the other measures being implemented, these are discussed in response to your other paragraphs below.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 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
Enhance CCTV coverage and resolution, monitor it continuously, and improve the PA system for remotely issued trespass warnings.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1.2 As set out in evidence before the inquest, public safety and site security is aided by extensive CCTV which is monitored by Servo, our security contractors, who can communicate directly via the site PA system and also will make reports to the Police and relevant key holders.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 4 May 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
Commission a detailed options report and develop an agreed design for a barrier at the weir and sluice-gate interface.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4.2 The sluice gates and weir are not on land which is owned or controlled by YHL. Since the tragic incident YHL has sought to engage with the relevant parties to consider whether it is feasible to construct an additional barrier on or around these structures where they interface with the Facility. YHL does not have the authority to take action unilaterally in relation to any such works.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 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
Trial a manned security presence daily from 10am to 8pm during summer months.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1.3 We are currently trialling having a manned security presence on site between the hours of 10am to 8pm, 7 days a week for the summer months. Primarily the guard is a deterrent. The guard will be limited in challenging trespassers, for example they will not be able to physically remove them from the Facility.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 4 May 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
Extend the screen-walkway access, relocate the existing end handrail and fit additional mesh decking over the screenings-channel end.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3.4 We are reducing the attraction of this route at the upstream end by extending the access along the screen walkway to include access over the end of the screenings channel. This would reduce the attraction to climb through/over to see what is beyond. This will be achieved by relocating the existing end handrail and fitting additional mesh decking.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 3 · 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
Covering the channels is not reasonably practicable because flooding, debris, maintenance access and potential escape hazards would introduce greater risks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3.2 The use of fences and barriers within the Facility, as well as the covering of channels has to be considered in the context of debris entrapment and critically, access for those removing it. The force of the river and the substantial debris that collects can and has caused damage to the Facility, this is one of the major operational concerns in this dynamic environment.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-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
The weir and sluice gates are not owned or controlled, and unilateral action to install barriers there is outside the authority available.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4.1 The route used by Elliot to access the Facility was to walk across the weir from the bank opposite, climb over the sluice gate structure and over a timber fence. The sluice gates (which are a listed structure) and the weir substantially predate the construction of the Facility.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · 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
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council leads construction of the barrier at the weir and sluice gates through completion.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4.3 YHL has been part of a working group with WMDC and CRT since before the inquest. YHL commissioned a detailed options report which formed the basis of the final design, agreed by the group, for a barrier at this location. The details of that design have been submitted by WMDC to the local planning authority.”

Source location
2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · 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

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.9

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

Actions described in response 9

Respondent positions 3