Working at Height Risk Assessment: What to Check

A working at height risk assessment that controls real site risks, assigns action and creates evidence your team can rely on during audits and incidents.

A fall from a step ladder, roof edge or mezzanine can change a routine maintenance task into a serious incident in seconds. A working at height risk assessment should therefore do more than record that someone may fall. It must show why the task is necessary, how exposure will be controlled, who is responsible and what evidence proves the controls were in place.

For facilities and compliance teams, the difficulty is rarely knowing that work at height is hazardous. It is managing the changing conditions around it: a contractor arrives with different equipment, a roof access hatch is obstructed, weather shifts, or a task that was expected to take ten minutes becomes an afternoon repair. A useful assessment turns those variables into clear decisions and repeatable site actions.

Start with the work, not the form

A generic assessment stating “falls from height” and “use appropriate PPE” is unlikely to help the person doing the work or defend the organisation after an incident. Begin by defining the actual activity and location. Replacing a light fitting above a stairwell, clearing a gutter, inspecting a plant room duct or retrieving stock from racking each creates different hazards, access needs and rescue considerations.

Record the people involved, including employees, contractors, visitors and anyone working below or nearby. Consider the duration and frequency of the task, the height of the fall, the surface below, restricted access, overhead services and whether normal building operations will continue around the work area.

This matters particularly across multi-site estates. “Roof inspection” may be one planned activity in a central register, but roof construction, edge protection, access arrangements and nearby public areas can vary considerably from site to site. The assessment should retain a consistent method while allowing local controls to be specific.

Apply the work at height hierarchy

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 require duty holders to plan work properly, use competent people and select suitable equipment. The practical starting point is the hierarchy of control: avoid work at height where reasonably practicable; where it cannot be avoided, prevent a fall; where risk remains, minimise the distance and consequences of a fall.

That sequence changes the conversation. Instead of asking which ladder is available, ask whether the item can be brought down, inspected remotely, installed at ground level or maintained from a permanent platform. Avoidance is often the strongest control, but it is not always realistic.

Where work must take place at height, collective protection generally takes priority over personal protection. Fixed guardrails, scaffold platforms, mobile elevating work platforms and suitable work platforms can protect more than one person without relying entirely on individual behaviour. Harnesses and lanyards may be necessary, but they depend on correct anchor points, fit, user training, inspection and a workable rescue plan.

A ladder is not automatically prohibited. It may be proportionate for low-risk, short-duration work where a more substantial solution cannot be justified and the task can be completed safely. It becomes a poor choice when the worker needs both hands for forceful work, must work for extended periods, carries awkward materials or cannot maintain secure footing.

Identify conditions that turn a routine task into a fall risk

The most effective assessments account for the conditions that make the planned method unsafe on the day. This is where a pre-start check adds value. It should confirm that the access route is clear, the work area can be segregated, equipment is serviceable and the surrounding environment still matches the assessment.

Pay close attention to fragile surfaces. Rooflights, ageing roofing sheets, suspended ceilings and corroded covers can look load-bearing when they are not. Do not rely on familiarity or visual appearance. Identify fragile areas, prevent access where possible and specify the physical protection required.

Weather is another operational control, not a footnote. Wind, rain, ice, poor light and high temperatures can affect grip, visibility, equipment stability and worker concentration. Define who has authority to stop the work and how that decision is recorded. A contractor facing a programme deadline should not be left to make an isolated judgement when conditions deteriorate.

The assessment must also address people below. A dropped tool or material can injure someone even where the worker at height is protected. Exclusion zones, toe boards, tool lanyards, controlled delivery routes and timed closures may all be appropriate, depending on the activity and public access.

Make competence and equipment checks traceable

“Trained staff only” is not a control unless the organisation can identify the trained staff, the training required and its current status. Competence may include task-specific experience, equipment training, site induction, supervision and an understanding of emergency arrangements. For complex or unusual work, a competent planner should review the method before work starts.

Equipment must match the job and be inspected at the right intervals. This includes ladders, podium steps, harnesses, lanyards, anchor devices, mobile platforms and associated safety equipment. A register is useful, but the evidence needs to connect the individual item to its inspection status and any defect report. If a defective ladder is removed from service, that action should be visible rather than buried in an email trail.

Contractor assurance deserves the same discipline. Confirm insurance, relevant competence, equipment records, method statements and the site-specific controls they have accepted. The client or site team should still check that actual conditions match the paperwork. A signed document does not make an unsafe access route safe.

Build a rescue plan before work begins

A rescue plan is commonly the weakest part of a working at height risk assessment. Calling the emergency services is not, by itself, a plan for a worker suspended in a harness. Suspension intolerance can develop quickly, and responders may not be able to access a restricted roof or internal void without help.

The plan should set out how a casualty will be reached, lowered or recovered; who will carry out the rescue; what equipment is needed; and how emergency access will be provided. It should also account for communications, first aid, site security and the need to preserve the incident scene once people are safe.

The right approach depends on the task. A maintenance team using a podium step may need a simple escalation process and first-aid provision. Roof work involving fall-arrest equipment requires a much more specific, rehearsed arrangement. If the rescue capability exists only on paper, the control has not been implemented.

Turn the assessment into controlled work

A risk assessment is strongest when it drives the workflow around the task. Link it to the relevant permit, contractor record, training requirements, equipment inspections, planned maintenance activity and incident process. That prevents a familiar failure: teams complete a risk assessment in one system, issue a permit in another and store inspection evidence somewhere else entirely.

Set clear ownership for each control. One person may arrange roof access, another may inspect the anchor point, and the contractor supervisor may establish the exclusion zone. Assign due dates and require completion evidence where the control is not immediate. Open actions should remain visible to the site manager and compliance team until they are closed.

A connected compliance platform such as CalmCompliance can bring these records together around the site, the asset and the people involved. QR-based access can make the current assessment, inspection history and task forms available where the work happens, while the audit trail records who reviewed, accepted and completed each action.

Review after change, not just on an annual cycle

Annual reviews have a place, but work at height assessments should also be reviewed after a change in task, equipment, building condition, contractor arrangement or incident. Near misses are particularly valuable. A ladder that slipped without injury, an unauthorised roof access attempt or a delayed rescue drill can reveal gaps before someone is harmed.

Use the review to improve the method, not merely amend the date field. Ask whether the hierarchy was applied properly, whether people understood the controls and whether the evidence would stand up to scrutiny. This creates a practical feedback loop between frontline work and governance.

The test is straightforward: if a site manager had to stop the job, explain the controls and produce the records within minutes, could they do it with confidence? When the answer is yes, the assessment is no longer an isolated document. It is part of how the building is run safely, every day.