Could you direct me to the source please ? Cheers

Very few scaffolds have the luxury of internal stairs however were time & money of no object great. Loading bays are always guarded by gates except in 3 rd world countries but ladder access points requiring gates were sited as FFI by the HSE recently.

Bob - I don't think that is what is meant, think the it is meaning at the top of a ladder access in order to prevent/protect anyone from falling through the access point whilst on the scaffold. They should not be a hinderance is designed/built correctly, they should open inwards from the ladder access onto the scaffold and be sprung loaded so that they return to the original position. Ideally it should only be a case of one person up the ladder at a time and thus no real issue, also advise putting guard rails around the top of the ladder access as additional protection for when stepping onto the ladder (just a view from previous experience). Agree with Bob that if the option is there and space then dedicated stairways should be the way forward as they reduce the risk and provide a better solution. Cost should not be any issue over someones / peoples safety. Look at haki towers - http://www.haki.com/en/products/stairs/

NASC introduced some guidance on this back in 2006 (SG25-06) stating the preferred method of access was proprietary scaffold staircases, then working down a hierarchy. Ladder access gates & trap doors were 3rd or 4th on the list of preferred access methods.

Your post suggests a misinterpretation of HSE's powers, regulations and FFI. You assume that there has to be a specific mention of a rule in regulation for HSE to suggest a material breach. Every material breach can be based upon site specific issues which may or may not indicate that HSE thinks that they are "mandatory". In any event, the regulations state that you should prevent falls. Gates clearly prevent falls for those who are using the scaffolding and therefore HSE is correct in assuming a material breach. I can't see how a door is a hindrance. A hindrance does not necessarily equate to a risk. Do you have any evidence that they cause more accidents? A hindrance to who? Someone carrying something up and down a ladder? As suggested above, if you are concerned about the hindance then provide a stairwell. It is reasonably practicable - which is enough for a material breach - to provide a gate as a minimum but leaving an opening is not acceptable. This is not something that HSE has dreamed up for FFI purposes but has been the view of HSE for many years. If the company you refer to did not have a notice for the lack of a gate then they were lucky to get away with a letter. Both may incur a charge but letters are not on the public database.

Hi BJC, Have a look at the NASC TG20:13 ACOP. This will give you the full chapter and verse for a compliant scaffold and its access arrangements appropriate to the type of build. Best regards Alex