Posted By N Howell Our company is currently moving to new premises and is in the process of having a new mezzanine floor installed which will over look a workshop area. Hand rails have been installed at correct height but there are no toe/kick boards in place to prevent debris being kicked on to the level below. When questioned about this the manufacturer said that as far as they are aware they is no legal requirement to supply these and it would be an extra charge if we wanted them. I know that they are required on scaffolding but can any one confirm or offer an explanation whether or not there are regulations which apply to mezzanine flooring or can someone offer a pointer as to where i can find this information. your assistance is appreciated.

Posted By Steve I would agree with Dave, if there is a possability of tools, equipment or other items being dropped or 'kicked' off onto persons working or passing below the platform then fit the kick boards. You could try contacting the Engineering Equipment Users Association at 20 Grosvenor Place London SW1X 7HZ, I have a copy of their NO7 Handbook that gives recommended dimensions of stairways, ladders, handrails, platforms & ramps. If you have no luck then please contact me and I will fax you the relevant pages. Steve

Posted By Jack Regulation 13 of the workplace regs applies here. The accompanying ACoP says "where necessary an adequate upstand or toeboard should be provided".

Posted By Jim Sweetman I can agree with all that has been said so far, particularly what Richard says. The organisation that I work for takes that approach as part of the course, the problem is pretty much endemic. That is until something happens and people start looking for accountability - watch people take an interest then! Having spoken personnally, now let me speak proessionally. I do not know the scale of the work that has been carried out, but it is certainly construction work. In that case, there may have been a Planning Supervisor on board. They are required to satisfy themselves that designs address the need to eliminate and control risks. To overlook something as basic as this indicates that they may not have carried out their duties properly - whoever is/has paid the bill could chase for money back because of services not received. Even if a Planning Supervisor has not been involve there will have been a designer. Similarly, they appear to have failed to satisfy their duties and design safely. There is a further avenue for comeback there. Even if the management chain are not interested in health and safety, they may demonstrate a little more interest if it can be shown that they have paid for something that wasn't received. Hope this helps, good luck. Jim

Posted By Robert K Lewis Just to add a couple of points. As mentioned there will definitely have been a PS somewhere. The designer will also use the current codes. The problem is that without input from the client that certain situations of work exist within the building that makes the fall of material from the edge a higher likelihood than anticipated in the building regs and standard design codes the design will not reflect those risks. This situation is often met when buildings are part of a speculative development with no specific end user in mind. It also occurs however when the client design brief contains ommissions. Contractors and designers are not and can never be mind readers. If you cannot persuade the management to accept the installation retrospectively of kick boards then perhaps you will need to move to more general management controls. Thes could include prohibitions on storage on the outside edge of the floor. Not the best perhaps and will need supervision. Bob

Posted By Barry hutton This is an interesting thread. I work for a local authority with a coastline, which has a pier. The guard railing to either side of the pier (and equally along the promenade) utilises railing systems that allow small children to climb them and/or potentially fall through them. These types of railing systems are, I believe, extensive and common on promenades, etc. We have recieved a complaint from a MOP questioning there safety. I find it is hard to believe there is no standard covering their design in such situations. However if such railings were used in buildings were children could be present then the designer/architect would be restricted to using guard railing that makes it impratcial to climb and where the gaps don't exceed 100mm. I am forming the view that the precedant has been set by Building regs in relation to prevention of small children falling. Therefore whenever there is the possiblilty of children being present and there is a fall hazard, the standard for external areas to buildings should be the same as that in the building regs. Any comments?