Working at height is never without (fall) danger. To prevent falls and physical injury, the legislator imposes strict requirements around fall protection provisions on buildings and structures. The client and architect are legally responsible for complying with these safety rules in the design and application of these fall protection provisions during the construction and maintenance phase.
There are several measures that reduce the risk of fall hazards during the construction and maintenance of a building. "Some measures are more effective than others. The safety regulations in the 1996 Welfare Act and the 2001 safety coordination legislation rank these measures in terms of their effectiveness. This ranking is also known as the prevention hierarchy. It describes six levels of prevention, starting with the most effective measure - eliminating the risk of falling - to the least effective - warning of danger using signs." points out specialist Tijl Lauwers at Tectum Group.
Eliminating danger is obviously the best and most desirable measure, but it is not always practical or technically feasible. The prevention hierarchy helps determine which measures are most appropriate during construction or building maintenance.
Legislation does not mandate any form of fall protection. It does, however, mandate compliance with the prevention hierarchy. "After all, the legislation does not provide a means obligation - 'there must be a railing', but a result obligation 'there must be sufficient guarantees to work safely'. In concrete terms, this means that as a client or designer, you are jointly liable for the safety of future construction workers and users. In the event of an accident, the judge may ask you as the builder or designer whether you did the maximum to avoid the accident, for example, by inherently designing the building to be maximally safe. In doing so, the judge does not consider the construction budget, planning, aesthetics or city planning regulations. He or she only assesses whether more could have been done to avoid the accident," says Tijl Lauwers.
Not only the judge, but also the labor inspectorate will judge from this line of thinking, but with the Welfare Act and the Codex in hand. Article 5 in the Welfare Act clearly describes the prevention hierarchy, the Codex states in Title V, Chapter I that when providing protective devices to prevent falls, priority is given to collective protective measures over personal protective measures. The position of the Labor Inspectorate is therefore that "the building supervisor in charge of the design (usually an architect) and, where appropriate, the client (for an area greater than 500m²) must apply the general principles of prevention in all the choices they make regarding the construction project. These choices can be architectural, technical, plant-related and organizational. They must do this during all phases of the construction work.
"In other words, the client and architect must ensure that the building can be built and maintained inherently safe. For the record, safety measures during the use phase are provisions that the architect must already provide at the design stage. Consequently, in 2021, a judge in Luxembourg convicted an architect and hotel chain of violations of the prevention hierarchy by opting for a lifeline instead of collective security in the design phase for roof maintenance," says Tijl Lauwers.
In an accident, the court may hold you liable if you did not do the maximum to avoid the accident.
That court ruling was not without consequences. The tendency today is for more and more building owners and designers to opt for elimination by providing a sufficiently high parapet, or at least for collective protection in the form of a fixed or folding parapet when urban planning requirements prevent other architectural solutions. Personal protection is still only tolerated to a limited extent when collective protection is not technically possible. "An additional advantage of a permanent balustrade or fixed railing is also that you can later use the roof as a utility roof, for example with a roof terrace," concludes Tijl Lauwers.
Need more information about fall protection? Contact Tijl on +32 475 441 571 or contact Tectum Plus on the number +32 3 889 66 03.
Working at height is never without (fall) danger. To prevent falls and physical injury, the legislator imposes strict requirements around fall protection provisions on buildings and structures. The client and architect are legally responsible for complying with these safety rules in the design and application of these fall protection provisions during the construction and maintenance phase.
There are several measures that reduce the risk of fall hazards during the construction and maintenance of a building. "Some measures are more effective than others. The safety regulations in the 1996 Welfare Act and the 2001 safety coordination legislation rank these measures in terms of their effectiveness. This ranking is also known as the prevention hierarchy. It describes six levels of prevention, starting with the most effective measure - eliminating the risk of falling - to the least effective - warning of danger using signs." points out specialist Tijl Lauwers at Tectum Group.
Eliminating danger is obviously the best and most desirable measure, but it is not always practical or technically feasible. The prevention hierarchy helps determine which measures are most appropriate during construction or building maintenance.
Legislation does not mandate any form of fall protection. It does, however, mandate compliance with the prevention hierarchy. "After all, the legislation does not provide a means obligation - 'there must be a railing', but a result obligation 'there must be sufficient guarantees to work safely'. In concrete terms, this means that as a client or designer, you are jointly liable for the safety of future construction workers and users. In the event of an accident, the judge may ask you as the builder or designer whether you did the maximum to avoid the accident, for example, by inherently designing the building to be maximally safe. In doing so, the judge does not consider the construction budget, planning, aesthetics or city planning regulations. He or she only assesses whether more could have been done to avoid the accident," says Tijl Lauwers.
Not only the judge, but also the labor inspectorate will judge from this line of thinking, but with the Welfare Act and the Codex in hand. Article 5 in the Welfare Act clearly describes the prevention hierarchy, the Codex states in Title V, Chapter I that when providing protective devices to prevent falls, priority is given to collective protective measures over personal protective measures. The position of the Labor Inspectorate is therefore that "the building supervisor in charge of the design (usually an architect) and, where appropriate, the client (for an area greater than 500m²) must apply the general principles of prevention in all the choices they make regarding the construction project. These choices can be architectural, technical, plant-related and organizational. They must do this during all phases of the construction work.
"In other words, the client and architect must ensure that the building can be built and maintained inherently safe. For the record, safety measures during the use phase are provisions that the architect must already provide at the design stage. Consequently, in 2021, a judge in Luxembourg convicted an architect and hotel chain of violations of the prevention hierarchy by opting for a lifeline instead of collective security in the design phase for roof maintenance," says Tijl Lauwers.
That court ruling was not without consequences. The tendency today is for more and more building owners and designers to opt for elimination by providing a sufficiently high parapet, or at least for collective protection in the form of a fixed or folding parapet when urban planning requirements prevent other architectural solutions. Personal protection is still only tolerated to a limited extent when collective protection is not technically possible. "An additional advantage of a permanent balustrade or fixed railing is also that you can later use the roof as a utility roof, for example with a roof terrace," concludes Tijl Lauwers.
Need more information about fall protection? Contact Tijl on +32 475 441 571 or contact Tectum Plus on the number +32 3 889 66 03.
Top priority for fall protection
Working at height is never without (fall) danger. To prevent falls and physical injury, the legislator imposes strict requirements around fall protection provisions on buildings and structures. The client and architect are legally responsible for complying with these safety rules in the design and application of these fall protection provisions during the construction and maintenance phase.
There are several measures that reduce the risk of fall hazards during the construction and maintenance of a building. "Some measures are more effective than others. The safety regulations in the 1996 Welfare Act and the 2001 safety coordination legislation rank these measures in terms of their effectiveness. This ranking is also known as the prevention hierarchy. It describes six levels of prevention, starting with the most effective measure - eliminating the risk of falling - to the least effective - warning of danger using signs." points out specialist Tijl Lauwers at Tectum Group.
Eliminating danger is obviously the best and most desirable measure, but it is not always practical or technically feasible. The prevention hierarchy helps determine which measures are most appropriate during construction or building maintenance.
Legislation does not mandate any form of fall protection. It does, however, mandate compliance with the prevention hierarchy. "After all, the legislation does not provide a means obligation - 'there must be a railing', but a result obligation 'there must be sufficient guarantees to work safely'. In concrete terms, this means that as a client or designer, you are jointly liable for the safety of future construction workers and users. In the event of an accident, the judge may ask you as the builder or designer whether you did the maximum to avoid the accident, for example, by inherently designing the building to be maximally safe. In doing so, the judge does not consider the construction budget, planning, aesthetics or city planning regulations. He or she only assesses whether more could have been done to avoid the accident," says Tijl Lauwers.
In an accident, the court may hold you liable if you did not do the maximum to avoid the accident.
Read more
Read more
Read more
Excessive or necessary?
Read more
Read more
Read more
Nearly 40% of global CO2 emissions are emitted by the construction industry. Time to change course. With a debate on circularity and circular flat roofs, Tectum Group is doing its part. Review the full debate.
Read more
SERV report confirms what we already knew
Read more
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
