Fall Arrest / Mansafe

[Adam2]

I have a few flat roof areas:

Garage - has a drop to rear/side of 5m

ground floor - has drop to side of 3m

top floor has drop of I expect 12m (could hurt!)

 

My draft building regs doc includes:

 

MANSAFE SYSTEMS

Proprietary Latchway’s (or similar approved) fall restraint mansafe systems to be provided to all

roof areas without permanent guarding for fall protection. Mansafe system to be designed in

accordance with all relevant British Standards and legislation. Layout, fixing and method of

accessing mansafe systems all to manufacturers / specialist subcontractors design. Drawings to

be provided for review by design team, client and contractor prior to order being placed. All fixings

to be confirmed by structural engineer and roofing subcontractor.

 

Is this a standard building regs requirement i.e., mandatory or just good practice?

 

If I do have to do this any suggestions for economical methods?

 

I found a portable system - though you might injure yourself moving it :-)

 

https://simplifiedsafety.co.uk/anchors-lifelines/mobile-man-anchor/weightanka-6-weights

 

 

[Miek]

Is this permanent or just for the build? 

 

Latchways is great kit (I use it at work), but Industrial grade expensive! Guarding would be the best option, but that won't be cheap either. 

 

How big are the roofs? 

 

Anything for fall protection will need to be proper, tested bolts, certs etc.. 

 

 

 

 

[PeterW]

You say this is draft ..? Is there any access onto the roof without the use of ladders..?

 

It sounds like whoever has written that has taken it from a commercial build not a domestic property. 

[Onoff]

Latchways are sh!t loads of money. All 316 stainless steel. I should know, my firm is a  Class 1 Installer. Looks the mutt's nuts if done well. Originally designed to go around the perimeter of yachts etc.

 

Weightanka with a suitable retractable fall restraint system might be an option. You have to ensure you can clip on from a point of safety. Think also of the arc of swing if you were say fully deployed at the max length and fell off the short edge of the roof...pendulum time!

 

Fall restraint is the way to go NOT fall arrest. If you fell off the side of the 3m drop with an arrest lanyard on you'd likely hit the deck before it had fully deployed. Then there's rescue plans, suspension trauma etc to consider.

[Sue B]

Jeez - is that from The new BCP council or the old Bournemouth council?  We have a flat roof and I really don’t want to get involved in a mansafe system after the hassles of using one in a new school I was BM in.  It was never ever used!

[ToughButterCup]

11 hours ago, Adam2 said:

[...]

Proprietary Latchway’s (or similar approved) fall restraint mansafe systems to be provided to all roof areas without permanent guarding for fall protection.

[...]

 

Fall prevention should be considered before fall restraint.  How much might be without Prevention Measures? 

None? Problem disappears.

[Onoff]

8 minutes ago, AnonymousBosch said:

 

Fall prevention should be considered before fall restraint.  How much might be without Prevention Measures? 

None? Problem disappears.

 

Agreed but some LAs kick off about visible handrail. Know to our cost where we fitted handrail instead of the spec'd L'way and had to rip it all out.

 

I did years ago manage to fit handrail on a building with sight lines to St Paul's 

by arguing it was the safest option.

 

Does the @Adam2 want handrail?

[Jeremy Harris]

I'm guessing that this is a commercial condition that's just been blindly copied on to a domestic building regs approval.  The general rule is that if access equipment is needed to get up on to a roof, then there's no requirement for a balustrade or permanently installed fall prevention/arrest systems for dwellings.  They are only needed if the roof can be accessed without using ladders, scaffolding etc.

 

If the roof can be accessed without access equipment then it will almost certainly be cheaper (and better) to provide a balustrade of some sort, perhaps glass if you want to retain the look of a roof with no railings around it.

 

I think it would be a good idea to go back to building control and ask them which part of the building regulations requires fall prevention/fall arrest from a domestic dwelling roof.

[Onoff]

9 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

I'm guessing that this is a commercial condition that's just been blindly copied on to a domestic building regs approval.  The general rule is that if access equipment is needed to get up on to a roof, then there's no requirement for a balustrade or permanently installed fall prevention/arrest systems for dwellings.  They are only needed if the roof can be accessed without using ladders, scaffolding etc.

 

If the roof can be accessed without access equipment then it will almost certainly be cheaper (and better) to provide a balustrade of some sort, perhaps glass if you want to retain the look of a roof with no railings around it.

 

I think it would be a good idea to go back to building control and ask them which part of the building regulations requires fall prevention/fall arrest from a domestic dwelling roof.

 

Part K applies in terms of the broad need for protection. Guessing these areas are accessible for (roof) maintenance only?

 

Consideration might be given to a suitable, unobtrusive, safety harness eyebolt(s) mounted on say a wall whereby you could attach a retractable fall restraint block upon accessing the area.

[Jeremy Harris]

Part K2 has nothing about requiring fall protection from any elevated area to which there isn't access (my highlight):

 

Protection from falling

K2.      (a)  Any stairs, ramps, floors and balconies and any roof to which people have access

[Adam2]

Interesting ideas thanks. 

 

This is a draft doc from the architect to accompany BR drawings. 

 

I liked the portable system I linkes to in the original post. Well, price was ok. 

There is 1 area if the roof that you could access without ladders (single storey) so if the independent BC company insist on something will try and limit to that area and see if they accept the portable solution. Alternatively or 4 maybe preferably see if they accept some connection rings set through the EPS into the wall though will need to know about cwerification etc. If that fails then maybe block access to that roof area at a height they accept. Currently it is accessible from a terrace by climbing over a std height 1.1m balustrade, could maybe make that 1.8m.

 

Key point I think is to find the applicable rules on this. 

 

Thanks again, will update as I progress. 

[Adam2]

Great thanks for that bit @JSHarris

[Onoff]

19 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Part K2 has nothing about requiring fall protection from any elevated area to which there isn't access (my highlight):

 

Protection from falling

K2.      (a)  Any stairs, ramps, floors and balconies and any roof to which people have access

 

It does imo. We can cherry pick to our hearts content:

 

"Guarding of areas used for maintenance
For all buildings
3.4 Where people will use the stairs or ladders to access areas for maintenance they should comply 
with one of the following.
a. If access will be required frequently (e.g. a minimum of once per month): follow provisions such 
as those suggested for dwellings in this Approved Document (see Diagram 3.1).
b. If access will be required less frequently than once a month: it may be appropriate to use 
temporary guarding or warning notices. The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 
2007 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005 give provisions for such measures.
3.5 Use signs as specified in the Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996".

 

Also:

 

"For areas where access is required only for maintenance, greater care can be expected from people 
and therefore a lower standard of provision may be acceptable".

 

Working at Height regs are referred to also. The full Part K doc:

 

EXT.Approved-Document-K-Protection-from-Falling-ENG-2013.JMCN_.v1.200417.pdf

 

Is access required perhaps to these areas for periodic window cleaning, maintenance of pv panels etc?

 

Agreed though it needs a frank discussion as to why these requirements have been specified.

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

The general rule that's been used for decades is that if infrequent maintenance access is only by a temporary ladder or scaffolding, then no fixed provision for fall prevention/fall arrest is required.  That's been the standard interpretation of the prevention from falling part of the building regulations (not Part K, which is only guidance as to compliance, and is not the regulations) for years.   If there is a fixed ladder or staircase, or some other form of fixed roof access, then measures are normally required, ideally prevention, but if that isn't practical, then fall arrest provision.

 

FWIW, the building regulations legal requirements are all here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/schedule/1/made

 

This is the law, whereas the Approved Documents (like Part K etc) are only guidance as to methods that may be used as one way (they may well be other ways not in the Approved Documents) to demonstrate that the requirements in the regulations have been complied with.

 

The bit I quoted earlier came from the regulations, so is the legal requirement, not guidance.  This is a cut and paste of the whole part of the law which I quoted from earlier:

 

 

[Ferdinand]

What does this say for people who including easy access to flat roofs in their design, for maintenance?

 

eg if it is made easy to clean snow, if that access from inside is via a half landing window to avoid big dangerous ladders from outside, does that mean that parapets are required around the flat roof?

 

So presumably the technique is to make sure that the access window inside requires a step ladder or stool?

 

Ferdinand

[Onoff]

 

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

The general rule that's been used for decades is that if infrequent maintenance access is only by a temporary ladder or scaffolding, then no fixed provision for fall prevention/fall arrest is required.  That's been the standard interpretation of the prevention from falling part of the building regulations (not Part K, which is only guidance as to compliance, and is not the regulations) for years.   If there is a fixed ladder or staircase, or some other form of fixed roof access, then measures are normally required, ideally prevention, but if that isn't practical, then fall arrest provision.

 

FWIW, the building regulations legal requirements are all here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/schedule/1/made

 

This is the law, whereas the Approved Documents (like Part K etc) are only guidance as to methods that may be used as one way (they may well be other ways not in the Approved Documents) to demonstrate that the requirements in the regulations have been complied with.

 

The bit I quoted earlier came from the regulations, so is the legal requirement, not guidance.  This is a cut and paste of the whole part of the law which I quoted from earlier:

 

 

 

Edit: Comments withdrawn. Personal apology being made.

 

Don't ask.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Onoff

[Mr Punter]

1 hour ago, Adam2 said:

Currently it is accessible from a terrace by climbing over a std height 1.1m balustrade, could maybe make that 1.8m.

 

 

1.1m is fine. It is the same standard height required for a balcony handrail.

[Onoff]

3 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

 

1.1m is fine. It is the same standard height required for a balcony handrail.

 

Read Part K about if kids can climb it etc.

[Mr Punter]

Just now, Onoff said:

 

Read Part K about if kids can climb it etc.

 

Yes already have. It is well understood by all. That said, we have a table and chairs on a balcony and a small child of a visitor was very soon climbing on the chair, one foot on the table and leaning over. Same child at home is allowed to jump all over the furniture.

[Onoff]

4 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

 

Yes already have. It is well understood by all. That said, we have a table and chairs on a balcony and a small child of a visitor was very soon climbing on the chair, one foot on the table and leaning over. Same child at home is allowed to jump all over the furniture.

 

Tazer?

[ToughButterCup]

4 hours ago, Onoff said:

[...]

but some LAs kick off about visible handrail. Know to our cost where we fitted handrail instead of the spec'd L'way and had to rip it all out.

[...]

 

Can they really... are they allowed kick off in the light of the H&S's Fall Prevention Hierarchy?

Quote

 

• Avoid working at height if possible
• Use an existing safe place of work
• Provide work equipment to prevent falls
• Mitigate distance and consequences of a fall
• Instruction and training and/or other means

http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/campaigns/fallstrips/height.htm 

Downloaded April 2019

 

 

[Onoff]

10 minutes ago, AnonymousBosch said:

 

Can they really... are they allowed kick off to in the light of the H&S's Fall Prevention Hierarchy?

 

 

Yep. Sight lines on protected views, listed buildings etc. Latchways fitted right works really well but the onus is on whoever is accessing the roof to clip on. Fit a handrail or screen and there's no worry.

 

Years ago was on a big bank job where the roof was covered in God awful looking plant. To tidy it up they erected a louvred screen wall around the whole lot. Tbh the screen wall was only as high as the tallest bit of plant and it tidied everything up so much. There was a right fuss made over them compromising the sight lines to St Pauls which was b@llocks.

[Jeremy Harris]

I think this runs into which bit of legislation takes precedence.  We had two planning conditions that were, in effect, mutually exclusive.  I had a planning requirement (that I believe originated from highways) stating that the drive gradient shouldn't exceed 1:15, and a condition imposed by the Environment Agency stating that the garage and car parking area had to be a minimum of 1.5m above the 1:100 year flood risk level.  As the latter was level with the bottom of the drive, it meant the drive had to slope up 1.5m in the space of around 12m, just to fit in the plot, which gave a gradient of around 1:8.  I explained this to the planning officer who told me that the EA requirement took precedence over the highways requirement, and that the drive gradient condition would be removed.

 

My guess is that there may be similar rules that apply as to whether appearance trumps part of the normal hierarchy used to ensure safety.

[Adam2]

OK so I met with the architect today on a number of subject, including the fall from height bits. It seems these were included in the BR notes as a recommendation and they do not see these as being something the BC body has an interest in. The reason for doing so is professional indemnity related (you could say because they care ) apparently there have been claims against architects due to accidents happening relating to items that were not identified as risks by the architect. If we choose to ignore the recommendation that is our choice. Big relief - was very helpful though going into the discussion being much better informed so thanks again for all the helpful comments and links above.

[Mr Punter]

Architects are also more focused on things like safe access for window cleaning than used to be the case, and they may suggest inward opening or reversible ones that can be cleaned from inside.  Again, this is partly PI prompted, but it is no bad thing.