PFD report

Alexander Charles Edward Thomas · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Jan 2025•Manchester South

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

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 raised3

  1. Failure to prevent access to the eastbound motorway crash barrier via a fixed metal ladder
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
  2. Lack of fencing preventing access over the eastbound motorway crash barrier
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sitesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
  3. Failure to prevent access from the pedestrian walkway to the eastbound motorway crash barrier via a ramp-like structure
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sitesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Action

    Repair and extend boundary fencing around the hotel car park, Hasty Lane and the structure’s wing walls to reduce access to the carriageway.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 January 2025.
  2. Action

    Assess with electrical and maintenance teams whether remote cabinet access is feasible, whether carriageway ladder access is essential, and what health and safety requirements apply.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 January 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Completely preventing determined pedestrian access to the Strategic Road Network is impossible, although fencing and compliant design provide deterrence and security.

    Stated by National HighwaysDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 prevent access to the eastbound motorway crash barrier via a fixed metal ladder

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest, I heard that ████████ is a pedestrian walkway running underneath the M56 motorway. On the northern side of the motorway (eastbound carriageway side) the entrance to the walkway tunnel is constructed so that the buttress walls form a ramp-like structure which has a shallow gradient topped with a waist-high railing which provides an easily accessible and walkable route from the footpath to the Armco crash barrier bordering the hard shoulder of the eastbound motorway carriageway. 2. Also leading from ████████ is an established track through undergrowth running west parallel to the motorway. That path leads directly to a fixed bespoke metal ladder which appears to be specifically positioned so as to enable a person to climb up to the Armco crash barrier bordering the hard shoulder of the eastbound carriageway. 3. There is no fencing to prevent access over the Armco crash barrier onto the motorway itself along this stretch of the eastbound carriageway, in contrast to the substantial fencing positioned behind the Armco crash barrier along the opposite stretch of the westbound carriageway. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

Open source report

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

Lack of fencing preventing access over the eastbound motorway crash barrier

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest, I heard that ████████ is a pedestrian walkway running underneath the M56 motorway. On the northern side of the motorway (eastbound carriageway side) the entrance to the walkway tunnel is constructed so that the buttress walls form a ramp-like structure which has a shallow gradient topped with a waist-high railing which provides an easily accessible and walkable route from the footpath to the Armco crash barrier bordering the hard shoulder of the eastbound motorway carriageway. 2. Also leading from ████████ is an established track through undergrowth running west parallel to the motorway. That path leads directly to a fixed bespoke metal ladder which appears to be specifically positioned so as to enable a person to climb up to the Armco crash barrier bordering the hard shoulder of the eastbound carriageway. 3. There is no fencing to prevent access over the Armco crash barrier onto the motorway itself along this stretch of the eastbound carriageway, in contrast to the substantial fencing positioned behind the Armco crash barrier along the opposite stretch of the westbound carriageway. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sites; Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

Open source report

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 prevent access from the pedestrian walkway to the eastbound motorway crash barrier via a ramp-like structure

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest, I heard that ████████ is a pedestrian walkway running underneath the M56 motorway. On the northern side of the motorway (eastbound carriageway side) the entrance to the walkway tunnel is constructed so that the buttress walls form a ramp-like structure which has a shallow gradient topped with a waist-high railing which provides an easily accessible and walkable route from the footpath to the Armco crash barrier bordering the hard shoulder of the eastbound motorway carriageway. 2. Also leading from ████████ is an established track through undergrowth running west parallel to the motorway. That path leads directly to a fixed bespoke metal ladder which appears to be specifically positioned so as to enable a person to climb up to the Armco crash barrier bordering the hard shoulder of the eastbound carriageway. 3. There is no fencing to prevent access over the Armco crash barrier onto the motorway itself along this stretch of the eastbound carriageway, in contrast to the substantial fencing positioned behind the Armco crash barrier along the opposite stretch of the westbound carriageway. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sites; Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

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

Repair and extend boundary fencing around the hotel car park, Hasty Lane and the structure’s wing walls to reduce access to the carriageway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will repair the boundary fence both at the edge of the hotel car park and Hasty Lane, extending this to cover the wing walls of the structure to increase the security and reduce access to the area along the carriageway. This work will be completed by the 30 June 2025.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 16 January 2025

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

Assess with electrical and maintenance teams whether remote cabinet access is feasible, whether carriageway ladder access is essential, and what health and safety requirements apply.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, we are in discussion with our Electrical team and Maintenance contractors to establish if it is feasible to maintain a more remote access to the electrical cabinets and whether direct access from the mainline carriageway, via the ladder, is essential. This includes the relevant health and safety requirements and if this can be resolved we will take steps to remove the ladder from the retaining wall. Again, if this is feasible the work will be completed by 30 June 2025.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 16 January 2025

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

Completely preventing determined pedestrian access to the Strategic Road Network is impossible, although fencing and compliant design provide deterrence and security.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The M56 motorway at this point spans Hasty Lane which forms an underpass to facilitate access by cyclists and pedestrians. The structural supports and cast concrete wing walls mirror the profile of the embankments on either side of the motorway and are located within the highway boundary. This design of ‘bridge’ complies with the design requirements outlined within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and includes tubular railings to protect against falls from the structure. It is accepted that this type of design does not deter determined attempts by pedestrians to gain access to the motorway but when combined with timber boundary fence provides some deterrence and security. By the very nature of the Strategic Road Network, it is impossible to fully deny access.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 16 January 2025

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