PFD report

Heather Frances Page · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Jun 2021•Nottinghamshire

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
5

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
10

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.

Concerns raised5

  1. Railway track with multiple easy access points near a popular beauty spot increasing suicide risk
    Part of recurring concern: Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks
  2. Pedestrian crossings requiring people to walk on railway tracks
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings
  3. Dependence on local authority support for closing or rationalising crossings
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to resolve closure or rationalisation of hazardous railway crossings
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.7

  1. Action

    Submitted a consultation response supporting proposals to improve crossing safety and accessibility for disabled and non-disabled users.

    Stated by Erewash Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
  2. Action

    Meet with Public Health Authority officers to discuss Network Rail deaths and near misses.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
  3. Action

    Divert public rights of way at specified Nottinghamshire crossings to remove or avoid at-grade railway crossings.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    Previous changes, including potential closures, to level crossings near Attenborough Nature Reserve could not be implemented because of strong local opposition.

    Stated by NetworkRailUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Railway track with multiple easy access points near a popular beauty spot increasing suicide risk

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was heard regarding the section of track adjacent to the Attenborough Nature Reserve. I noted the following issues of concern in relation to this section of track:- (1) There are a number of pedestrian crossings along this short stretch of track which involve pedestrians having to walk on the tracks to cross to the other side. (2) There has been a high number of fatalities along this short section of track (seven in as many years). (3) The nature of that section of track is such that it increases the risks of completed suicide due to the ease of access at multiple points and its proximity to a very popular beauty spot. (4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities. (5) Support or opposition from local authorities and councils will respectively increase or reduce the prospects of the risks inherent in that stretch of track being reduced. In the absence of support from local authorities and councils, Network Rail will be less likely to make an application to close or rationalise crossings along this section of track, given the known opposition from some persons living near, or using, the crossings. If an application is made, it will be less likely to be granted in the absence of support from the relevant local authorities and councils. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective controls preventing access to railway tracks.

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

Pedestrian crossings requiring people to walk on railway tracks

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was heard regarding the section of track adjacent to the Attenborough Nature Reserve. I noted the following issues of concern in relation to this section of track:- (1) There are a number of pedestrian crossings along this short stretch of track which involve pedestrians having to walk on the tracks to cross to the other side. (2) There has been a high number of fatalities along this short section of track (seven in as many years). (3) The nature of that section of track is such that it increases the risks of completed suicide due to the ease of access at multiple points and its proximity to a very popular beauty spot. (4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities. (5) Support or opposition from local authorities and councils will respectively increase or reduce the prospects of the risks inherent in that stretch of track being reduced. In the absence of support from local authorities and councils, Network Rail will be less likely to make an application to close or rationalise crossings along this section of track, given the known opposition from some persons living near, or using, the crossings. If an application is made, it will be less likely to be granted in the absence of support from the relevant local authorities and councils. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate safety controls at railway level crossings.

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

Dependence on local authority support for closing or rationalising crossings

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was heard regarding the section of track adjacent to the Attenborough Nature Reserve. I noted the following issues of concern in relation to this section of track:- (1) There are a number of pedestrian crossings along this short stretch of track which involve pedestrians having to walk on the tracks to cross to the other side. (2) There has been a high number of fatalities along this short section of track (seven in as many years). (3) The nature of that section of track is such that it increases the risks of completed suicide due to the ease of access at multiple points and its proximity to a very popular beauty spot. (4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities. (5) Support or opposition from local authorities and councils will respectively increase or reduce the prospects of the risks inherent in that stretch of track being reduced. In the absence of support from local authorities and councils, Network Rail will be less likely to make an application to close or rationalise crossings along this section of track, given the known opposition from some persons living near, or using, the crossings. If an application is made, it will be less likely to be granted in the absence of support from the relevant local authorities and councils. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to resolve closure or rationalisation of hazardous railway crossings.

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 reduce or rationalise the number of crossings

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was heard regarding the section of track adjacent to the Attenborough Nature Reserve. I noted the following issues of concern in relation to this section of track:- (1) There are a number of pedestrian crossings along this short stretch of track which involve pedestrians having to walk on the tracks to cross to the other side. (2) There has been a high number of fatalities along this short section of track (seven in as many years). (3) The nature of that section of track is such that it increases the risks of completed suicide due to the ease of access at multiple points and its proximity to a very popular beauty spot. (4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities. (5) Support or opposition from local authorities and councils will respectively increase or reduce the prospects of the risks inherent in that stretch of track being reduced. In the absence of support from local authorities and councils, Network Rail will be less likely to make an application to close or rationalise crossings along this section of track, given the known opposition from some persons living near, or using, the crossings. If an application is made, it will be less likely to be granted in the absence of support from the relevant local authorities and councils. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to resolve closure or rationalisation of hazardous railway crossings; Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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

High fatality rate along the section of track

Wider context from the report

“Evidence was heard regarding the section of track adjacent to the Attenborough Nature Reserve. I noted the following issues of concern in relation to this section of track:- (1) There are a number of pedestrian crossings along this short stretch of track which involve pedestrians having to walk on the tracks to cross to the other side. (2) There has been a high number of fatalities along this short section of track (seven in as many years). (3) The nature of that section of track is such that it increases the risks of completed suicide due to the ease of access at multiple points and its proximity to a very popular beauty spot. (4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities. (5) Support or opposition from local authorities and councils will respectively increase or reduce the prospects of the risks inherent in that stretch of track being reduced. In the absence of support from local authorities and councils, Network Rail will be less likely to make an application to close or rationalise crossings along this section of track, given the known opposition from some persons living near, or using, the crossings. If an application is made, it will be less likely to be granted in the absence of support from the relevant local authorities and councils. ”

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

Submitted a consultation response supporting proposals to improve crossing safety and accessibility for disabled and non-disabled users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of the Level Crossing Closures Programme, the Council were invited to respond to Network Rail’s Equality Stakeholder Engagement Topic Guide (consultants ████████ had been appointed by Network Rail to undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) to investigate the impact of any works affecting the crossing). On behalf of the Council, I produced the response looking at the various issues from the perspective of Planning Policy. In the Council’s submission (Appendix B), support was demonstrated for any proposal, including a replacement footbridge, which would help to improve both the safety for crossing users as well as increased accessibility at the crossing for disabled and non-disabled users.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Erewash-Borough-Council_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 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

Meet with Public Health Authority officers to discuss Network Rail deaths and near misses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“10. Additionally, officers of NCC in its capacity as Local Highway Authority are to meet with officers of NCC in its capacity as Public Health Authority next week to discuss ‘Network Rail Deaths and Near Misses’, which it is understood is specifically in relation to work by the British Transport Police, Network Rail and Public Health colleagues regarding suicides on the railway.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 4 · response
Published 28 June 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

Divert public rights of way at specified Nottinghamshire crossings to remove or avoid at-grade railway crossings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. Notwithstanding the above, it has been possible to obtain public support to take forward a number of safety improvements in recent years, and several crossings in Nottinghamshire have been diverted by NCC and bridged by Network Rail to remove at grade crossings over operational lines. For example:”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 28 June 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

Provide temporary emergency closure of Burton Joyce Footpath No.6 to prevent public access during Network Rail emergency safety works.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. Separate to the above, NCC continues to work closely with Network Rail’s Level Crossing Managers in order to help manage public safety at level crossings. For example, NCC recently provided a temporary emergency closure on Burton Joyce Footpath No.6 (Chestnut Grove) following a near-miss incident which prevented public access while Network Rail undertook some emergency improvement works.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 4 · response
Published 28 June 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

Continue Countryside Access Team contact and collaboration with Network Rail’s Liabilities Team on public-highway rights across railway land.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. NCC’s Countryside Access Team has regular contact and a good working relationship with Network Rail’s Liabilities Team; this being the team within Network Rail with responsibility for the stopping up and diversion of public highway rights across railway lines and operational property. As part of this, NCC are currently discussing a number of at grade crossings in the County regarding their future management, as well as discussing opportunities for access on their non-operational land, which would increase public safety. Any proposals arising from this would, however, be subject to the formal legally prescribed consultation referred to above and thus may potentially be unable to be taken forward due to objections from highway users.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 28 June 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

Maintain regular dialogue with Network Rail about level-crossing diversions, bridges, future management and safer access to non-operational land.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. Additional to the above, NCC and Network Rail are in regular dialogue regarding level”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 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

Work with other agencies to improve safety across Derbyshire and help prevent fatalities within the Council’s legal powers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are aware of the report undertaken by British Transport Police in November 2020 and as a local authority we will do whatever is within our legal power to assist in the prevention of fatalities however it will take a coordinated approach from the various local councils, Network Rail and the Highways Authority in order to achieve this. Derbyshire County Council as the relevant Highway Authority for Derbyshire will always work with other agencies to improve safety across the County.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Derbyshire-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 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

Previous changes, including potential closures, to level crossings near Attenborough Nature Reserve could not be implemented because of strong local opposition.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As the assistant coroner has noted, we’ve attempted to make changes to (and potentially close) a number of level crossings in the vicinity of the Attenborough Nature Reserve in the past. However, we recognise that there was a strong local opposition to our plans at the time and we weren’t able to make the changes.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Network-Rail_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 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

Network Rail is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the safety of the national rail network, including level crossings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“B. The operation, maintenance and improvement of a safe national rail network (including level crossings), is the responsibility of Network Rail, with oversight and funding specifically provided to them by the Office of Rail and Road for improving safety at such crossings.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 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 assertion that local authorities opposed Network Rail’s efforts to rationalise crossings is incorrect in respect of Nottinghamshire County Council.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. NCC is grateful for sight of the Assistant Coroner’s report relating to Heather Frances PAGE and would be happy to attend any future inquests if it can provide information of assistance to the coroner. NCC is concerned that, in the report, it is stated that evidence was heard that “(4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities”. As the Assistant Coroner will be aware, NCC was not invited to be an interested party at the inquest and was provided with no opportunity to answer this assertion which is, for the reasons set out below, incorrect.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 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 Authority cannot unilaterally close or rationalise crossings because statutory consultation and objection procedures restrict its available powers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Closure of level crossings can be achieved under 4 separate Acts of Parliament¹, with only the Highways Act powers available to the Local Highway Authority. The prescribed process which Highway Authorities must follow in order to divert or extinguish certain minor public highways² involve the making of an Order and formal public consultation. Should objections be received and maintained to the diversion or extinguishment, an Order cannot be brought into effect but must be referred to the Secretary of State for determination which often necessitates the holding of a local public inquiry, though it is possible, at the Secretary of State’s discretion, for such an Order to be determined following a hearing or, rarely, to be dealt with by an exchange of written representations.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 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

Where a person intends suicide, no measures can prevent it, and widespread crossing closures would face overwhelming public resistance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. as with the highways network, it is inevitably the case that where a person intends to take their own life, there are no measures that can be put in place to prevent it (and widespread closure of all such crossings would meet with overwhelming public resistance due to the level of interference that would represent with people’s enjoyment of such routes); and”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 4 · response
Published 28 June 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

Network Rail would have to apply under section 119A of the Highways Act 1980 to divert the public footpath’s current alignment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The correspondence indicated that the planners within Network Rail were planning on making contact with the local planning authority, which would be Erewash Borough Council in this regard, in relation to the proposed design that had been prepared. It was identified that you would have to make an application under Section 119a of the Highways Act 1980 to divert the public footpaths current alignment. To the best of our knowledge Derbyshire County Council received no further correspondence from Network Rail in relation to this matter.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Derbyshire-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 2021

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Attend biannual Road and Rail Partnership meetings to discuss level-crossing safety issues.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
  2. 2

    Manage and administer Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum meetings, including regular consideration of level-crossing safety.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
  3. 3

    Hold a meeting with Network Rail, councillors and Council officers to seek potential solutions to safety concerns at the three level crossings.

    Stated by Broxtowe Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 June 2021.

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

Attend biannual Road and Rail Partnership meetings to discuss level-crossing safety issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. NCC actively contributes to and attends bi-annual ‘Road and Rail Partnership’ meetings, organised by Network Rail and attended by Network Rail staff including Level Crossing managers and their Liability Negotiations Team, British Transport Police and Train Operating Companies such as East Midlands Railway. The meeting is to discuss issues relating to level crossings both on carriageways and public rights of way, and bridge strikes.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 28 June 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

Manage and administer Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum meetings, including regular consideration of level-crossing safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. NCC also manages and administers meetings of the Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum, at which Network Rail attend annually to update members and officers on matters relating to public rights of way crossings; level crossings being a standing item on the LAF’s quarterly meetings. The LAF is established under S.94, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and is a group of volunteers who represent different stakeholders with an interest in countryside access and public rights of way.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Nottinghamshire-County-Council_Published
Page 4 · response
Published 28 June 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

Hold a meeting with Network Rail, councillors and Council officers to seek potential solutions to safety concerns at the three level crossings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Council has recently received a letter from ████████, (Route Director), Network Rail suggesting a meeting to seek potential solutions to the matters of concern that have been raised. A meeting has been scheduled to take place on Friday 22 October 2021 at 14:00 with both Councillors and Council Officers.”

Source location

2021-0213-Response-from-Broxtowe-Borough-Council_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 28 June 2021

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026