BCAB #1859

March 31, 2021

Re: Climability of guards

Project description

The subject is a guard and privacy screen divider. The guard is designed to be a protective barrier for roof decks/balconies where the walking surface is greater than 4.2 m above the adjacent ground below. The privacy screen is approximately 1.7 m high, is considered climbable for its full height, and separates the adjacent decks which are the same floor level.

The guard that protects the edge of the decks is non-climbable and complies with the requirements of Part 9 of the Building Code. At the end of the deck the guard has a 90 degree non-climbable return for about 1 meter which terminates just past the privacy screen. The guard returns and privacy screen are constructed on a 460 mm high parapet. There is a 125 mm ledge from the edge of the parapet to the privacy screen. The space between the end of the guard return and the privacy screen is open but will not allow the passage of a 100 mm sphere.

Applicable Code requirements

Sentence 9.8.8.6.(1) of Division B of the British Columbia Building Code 2018.

9.8.8.6.(1) Except for guards in industrial occupancies, guards required by Article 9.8.8.1. that protect a level located more than 4.2 m above the adjacent level shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening located between 140 mm and 900 mm above the level protected by the guard facilitates climbing. (See Note A-9.8.8.6.(1).)

Decision being appealed (local authority’s position)

The local authority has determined that the 125 mm ledge on the parapet at the end of the guard returns creates a step within 600 mm of the top of guard. This may allow a person to climb from the parapet to the top of the guard and make their way to a point at which they are not protected from a fall to the ground.

Appellant's position

The appellant maintains that there no climbable members, attachments or openings within 1 meter of the edge of the deck and therefore the design complies with Article 9.8.8.6.

Appeal Board decision #1859

It is the determination of the Board that the guard, as designed, is climbable and does not comply with the climbability limitations as prescribed in Sentence 9.8.8.6.(1).

Reason for decision

As the space between the guard return and the privacy screen is open at the parapet level (460 mm above the walking surface), this creates a step/foothold area that could facilitate climbing. However, if this area was closed, there would be no component of the guard that would facilitate climbing.

The Board considers the climbability conditions of Sentence 9.8.8.6.(1) are limited to the construction of a guard, and not construction of building components or accessories adjacent a guard. The Board acknowledges this can create increased risks in the potential climbability of the guard, which warrants preventative design considerations, however the Code does not specifically regulate this matter.

In this circumstance, the Board considers the guard terminates at the end of the guard returns, and that the parapet within is a considered a component of the guard and the parapet beyond the end of the guard return is not a component of the guard.

Lyle Kuhnert

Chair, Building Code Appeal Board