22 (IDeA - 3)

June 2006

Falling between levels

HHSRS 06/06

Yes

Yes

No

No

Vulnerable age

Related hazards

Persons aged under 5 years

None

Multiple locations

Secondary hazards

Second floor flat in a purpose

built block constructed in 1996

DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDS

DWELLING:

Background: This is a three storey block containing two cluster flats leading off a common landing at each

of the ground, first and second floors. The photograph on the right shows the guarding to the common

staircase and landing at the the second floor (there is a similar arrangement on the first floor). It is

constructed of metal profiled elements with the middle rail 850mm and the top rail 1.2m above the landing

floor. The lighting is adequate and the stairs are in good condition. The covering to the stairs, landing and

entrance lobby below is a vulcanised non-slip material on concrete. The flat also has a side-hung opening

casement window (with no restrictor) and the sill is approximately 400mm above floor level. There is a

grassed area beneath the window.

LIST OF RELEVANT MATTERS

LIKELIHOOD & OUTCOMES

# Compounding matters

-

None

A

B

-

-

a

Height of guarding

3

b

Easily climbed guarding

2

c

Openings in guarding

3

d

Construction/ repair of guarding

1

Outcomes

a

Height above ground level

3

b

Nature of floors

3

Key

3

Seriously defective

2

Defective

1

Not satisfactory

-

Satisfactory/NA

22 (IDeA - 3)

June 2006

HEALTH AND SAFETY RATING SYSTEM SCORES

LIKELIHOOD

Low

High

1 in 10

Av: Post 1979 Flats: 1235

10

< 4200 2400 1300 750 420 240 130

75

42

24

13

7.5

4

2.5

1.5 >

Justification

This guarding provides no barrier to a potential fall as the gap between the landing and the

middle rail is sufficiently large that a child would easily walk underneath (there is no need to

climb) the rail. There is in effect no guarding for the vulnerable age group, and the location

is on the main access to the living accommodation which is therefore unavoidable on a

daily basis. The low sill height to the window also increases the likelihood of a fall.

OUTCOMES

%

Av: Post 1979: 0.4

Class I

4.6

< 0.05 0.15 0.3

0.7

1.5

3

7

15

26

38 >

Av: 3.2

Class II

21.5

< 0.05 0.15 0.3

0.7

1.5

3

7

15

26

38 >

Av: 5.9

Class III

21.5

< 0.05 0.15 0.3

0.7

1.5

3

7

15

26

38 >

Av: 90.5

Class IV

52.4

< 0.05 0.15 0.3

0.7

1.5

3

7

15

26

38 >

Justification

The height of a fall from the 2nd floor landing, the unforgiving hard surfaces onto which a

fall would occur, together with the possibility of striking edges of the stairs and landing,

increases the chances of more extreme severe or serious harm. The area beneath the

window is a more forgiving surface but from the 2nd floor it could still be greater than the

national average.

Av. Post-1979 Flats: 8

RATING

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

Score:

7447

RATING SCORES AFTER IMPROVEMENT

IMPROVE

Likelihood to

1 in 1000

Outcomes to

4.6 21.5 21.5 52.4

%

Justification

Providing safe guarding in the form of vertical bars with no opening greater than 100mm, or

covering the existing balustrading with panelling on the landing side with a suitable sheet

material such as plywood or polycarbonate, together with fitting an opening restrictor to the

casement window, would reduce the likelihood to the average. There would be no change

to the harm outcomes for a fall from this 2nd floor dwelling.

Av: 8

NEW RATING

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

Score:

74

Av: Nos

Average likelihood and health outcomes for all persons aged under 5 years, 1997-99.