Gary Alan Peel · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Jan 2016•West Yorkshire (Western)

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure to deter scaling of viaduct walls

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Sustrans, Yorkshire and The Humber

    Arrange appropriately worded signs for installation at both ends of Hewenden Viaduct by the end of February 2016.

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

  1. Sustrans, Yorkshire and The Humber

    The viaduct’s Grade II listing limits permissible changes to its structural appearance.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. Sustrans, Yorkshire and The Humber

    Further parapet raising or caging is considered ineffective because people could choose other locations for suicide.

    No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  3. Sustrans, Yorkshire and The Humber

    The five-foot parapet walls comply with existing safety and design standards for bridge parapets.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to deter scaling of viaduct walls

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the inquest I heard that he deliberately scaled the 5 foot wall running along the viaduct and jumped to his death. • To review and consider the appropriateness of implementing deterrent measures to the walls of the viaduct. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Arrange appropriately worded signs for installation at both ends of Hewenden Viaduct by the end of February 2016.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will approach The Samaritans inviting them to prepare appropriately worded signs for each end of the Viaduct for installation by the end of February 2016. We have taken a similar approach at Conisbrough Viaduct in South Yorkshire which is common to the owners of many similar structures.”

Source location

Gary-Peel-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2016

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 viaduct’s Grade II listing limits permissible changes to its structural appearance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The viaduct is a Grade II listed structure and we are limited in the changes that can be made to its structural appearance”

Source location

Gary-Peel-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2016

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

Further parapet raising or caging is considered ineffective because people could choose other locations for suicide.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Raising the parapets further or installing caging would in our view be expensive and ineffective in this situation, as there are many other locations where, sadly, someone could choose to take their own life”

Source location

Gary-Peel-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2016

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 five-foot parapet walls comply with existing safety and design standards for bridge parapets.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The five feet high walls are well within our safety and design standards for bridge parapets”

Source location

Gary-Peel-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2016

Open published response
Back to top

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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026