• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

When is a roof considered 'accessible' as a deck (therefore requiring a railing)?

R

roolger

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
7
Location
Canada
I'm new here. Thanks for having me. I'm very grateful for the collective wisdom and experience here.

I'm designing my single level home to be set into a hillside... with a low-slope roof. I've searched my (albeit dated) Ontario building code book and can't find anything, and I've asked my municipal building inspector's office for an answer and they seem clueless.

How high does the roof need to be above grade at the back of the house not to be considered 'accessible' and hence with a fall hazard?

I see photos of earth-bermed houses with fully accessible roofs, and no railings. Is this a loop hole?

Rodger
 
no guards required on a roof . If it is labeled on the plans as a roof deck or occupiable space, i would require guards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This might be more of a question for your insurance company. They operate from a different prespective. Would they view it as an "attractive nuisance" or a "hazard" if the roof is easily accessed from the ground by children or teens?

I suggest contacting a few different companies and get their take on it while you are still in the design stage.
 
Wow! Quick responses! Thanks a bunch. I'm going to call some insurance companies... right now!

Thanks all.
 
Hi Rodger,

You're right, the model construction codes in Canada do not address this. Last year I had a resident build a berm house with a roof that was at the same level as the ground above, basically a continuation of the lawn. We determined that the code requires; flights of steps and ramps, exterior landings, porches, balconies, mezzanines, galleries and raised walkways to be protected with guards as applicable. Basically "areas designed to be occupied" require guards. Since this area was not designed to be an occupied space of the building we decided the building code would not require guards. We did discuss our concerns about falling with the resident who had already decided he was going to put up a fence to restrict access to the area (he had three children he was concerned about).

Basically this is a call that will have to be made by the local building official.
 
Thanks tmurray. That helps a lot.

I spoke with a few insurance companies including my auto insurance company.... who just now, on getting my new address just upped my premiums by $20 a month. Leeches. lol.

In any case... they don't have anything productive to offer. They cannot give restrictions to their clients... but can restrict who they offer insurance to. They would not give me a number... but would only say it depends on risk, the height of the fall hazard, the population density, the access etc etc.. maybe if I surrounded the house with mattresses they would be happy. :p

Ah well.
 
elowpop said:
44 inches . Just like a window access
Click to expand...
9.8.8.1.(1)Except as provided in Sentences (2) and (3), every surface to which access is provided for other than maintenance purposes, including but not limited to flights of steps and ramps, exterior landings, porches, balconies, mezzanines, galleries and raised walkways, shall be protected by a guard on each side that is not protected by a wall for the length where;

a) there is a difference in elevation of more than 600 mm between the walking surface and the adjacent surface, or

b) the adjacent surface within 1.2 m of the walking surface has a slope of more than 1 in 2.



Not a walking surface, not regulated by code for guards.
 
rleibowitz said:
Calling the insurance company is a little like hitting your thumb with a hammer, Ouch!
Click to expand...
Until they send out their inspector and he/she recommends

Attractive Nuisance 02

Recommend having a fence installed around the (identify area) by a licensed contractor to prevent the public from having free access.

This is a standard comment on the insurance reports I do. It is a judgment call made by the onsite inspector. Some will make the recommendation some won't. If the insured does not follow the recommendations then the rates are adjusted according to the risk.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top