We call for the rear access to Hemel Hempstead Station to remain open, residents have been given no safe, practical alternative and no proper consultation has occured on a closure that would affect daily travel for the whole community.
This route has been used safely for over 35 years, yet residents have now been told it will be closed permanently following a safety review, but no details of the specific safety concerns have been provided, and residents have not been given a clear or meaningful opportunity to respond before this decision was made. That is not a fair process when people depend on this access every day.
The proposed route would send people along a narrow path under a bridge where there is not enough road width for wide lorries or buses to pass comfortably. There is not enough room for a double buggy, and a parent with two children would not be able to walk there safely holding both children’s hands. Vehicles move quickly through this space and when the roads are waterlogged it completely soaks the pedestrians with no safe space for them to move into. For elderly pedestrians or people with any mobility challenges this path is not just an uncomfortable experience it is unsafe. Children going to senior school also use this route to reach buses, because it is seen as safer than walking under the bridge.
Closing this access without addressing these issues would put residents at real risk, make everyday journeys significantly harder, and undermine the reasonable expectation of many residents — reflected in property purchase decisions — that safe, direct walking access to the main line station would remain available.
We therefore ask that the rear access to Hemel Hempstead Station stays open, pending a full and transparent consultation process.
Updates
Reached 100 supporters
August 4, 2026
Text update
August 4, 2026
I have updated text post feedback
53 Comments
The rear access is very important to rail users and those transmitting through. There had been no consultation with the wider community and I would like to know what safety issues have been found. The rear access had been in place for a significant period of time - with no issues I know of. I’m going to ask our local councillor Hugo Hardy to take this up.
I need this back entrance for weekly access to rail station using a SAFE route. Alternative route is not safe and takes much longer which means I would have to use my car to get to the station. Others on my road would have to do the same, adding to the already congested traffic in the area.
Crossing the main road and walking along a very narrow pavement to get to the front of the station presents a significant danger to passengers which is currently avoided by using the back of the station .
The alternative route is not suitable for travel, in the winter months it is unstable and slippery, creating great risk for elderly people and children and many more demographics. The path has no streetlights during the winter, combined with the condition of the path, this is very dangerous. There has been no incidents in the last 35 years so unsure why it is suddenly a problem. Closing the gate permanently could lead to people jumping over the fence which is a great risk or damaging property
I am a retired person who finds it dangerous walking under the railway bridge which forms part of the alternative route proposed.
The alternative route under the bridge presents high risk and danger for all who use it and very unsafe for many. The actual risk of that makes any perceived risk faced by users of the rear access so insignificant and should be disregarded.
Essential for access for safety and mobility.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Copy link or share directly
Decision Makers:
David Taylor
We call for the rear access to Hemel Hempstead Station to remain open, residents have been given no safe, practical alternative and no proper consultation has occured on a closure that would affect daily travel for the whole community.
This route has been used safely for over 35 years, yet residents have now been told it will be closed permanently following a safety review, but no details of the specific safety concerns have been provided, and residents have not been given a clear or meaningful opportunity to respond before this decision was made. That is not a fair process when people depend on this access every day.
The proposed route would send people along a narrow path under a bridge where there is not enough road width for wide lorries or buses to pass comfortably. There is not enough room for a double buggy, and a parent with two children would not be able to walk there safely holding both children’s hands. Vehicles move quickly through this space and when the roads are waterlogged it completely soaks the pedestrians with no safe space for them to move into. For elderly pedestrians or people with any mobility challenges this path is not just an uncomfortable experience it is unsafe. Children going to senior school also use this route to reach buses, because it is seen as safer than walking under the bridge.
Closing this access without addressing these issues would put residents at real risk, make everyday journeys significantly harder, and undermine the reasonable expectation of many residents — reflected in property purchase decisions — that safe, direct walking access to the main line station would remain available.
We therefore ask that the rear access to Hemel Hempstead Station stays open, pending a full and transparent consultation process.
Updates
Reached 100 supporters
August 4, 2026
Text update
August 4, 2026
I have updated text post feedback
53 Comments
I strongly oppose the proposal to close the rear gate. I fail to see how the proposed alternative route is genuinely considered safer. If there is evidence to support this, it certainly has not been shared with those that will be most affected. The decision feels as though it’s been made from behind a desk, without proper understanding of how passengers actually use the station every day. If safety is the justification, the decision makers should publish the evidence and risk assessment.
The rear access is very important to rail users and those transmitting through. There had been no consultation with the wider community and I would like to know what safety issues have been found. The rear access had been in place for a significant period of time - with no issues I know of. I’m going to ask our local councillor Hugo Hardy to take this up.
I need this back entrance for weekly access to rail station using a SAFE route. Alternative route is not safe and takes much longer which means I would have to use my car to get to the station. Others on my road would have to do the same, adding to the already congested traffic in the area.
Crossing the main road and walking along a very narrow pavement to get to the front of the station presents a significant danger to passengers which is currently avoided by using the back of the station .
The alternative route is not suitable for travel, in the winter months it is unstable and slippery, creating great risk for elderly people and children and many more demographics. The path has no streetlights during the winter, combined with the condition of the path, this is very dangerous. There has been no incidents in the last 35 years so unsure why it is suddenly a problem. Closing the gate permanently could lead to people jumping over the fence which is a great risk or damaging property
I am a retired person who finds it dangerous walking under the railway bridge which forms part of the alternative route proposed.
The alternative route under the bridge presents high risk and danger for all who use it and very unsafe for many. The actual risk of that makes any perceived risk faced by users of the rear access so insignificant and should be disregarded.
Essential for access for safety and mobility.
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 250 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
I strongly oppose the proposal to close the rear gate. I fail to see how the proposed alternative route is genuinely considered safer. If there is evidence to support this, it certainly has not been shared with those that will be most affected. The decision feels as though it’s been made from behind a desk, without proper understanding of how passengers actually use the station every day. If safety is the justification, the decision makers should publish the evidence and risk assessment.