Frequently asked questions

Yes. Articles 4.240–4.241 of the Besluit bouwwerken leefomgeving (Bbl 2024, the Dutch Building Decree) require that every building can be safely maintained. A building is not granted an environmental permit if this cannot be demonstrated. In addition, under art. 3.5 Bbl the specific duty of care applies: an owner who knows or could reasonably suspect that a fall hazard exists is obliged to take measures — including in existing buildings. This minimises the liability of owners and planners.

Yes. Art. 3.5 Bbl makes no exception for existing buildings. Anyone who knows or could suspect that a fall hazard exists and has work carried out is obliged to take collective measures. NEN-EN 17235:2024 has no retroactive effect, but the duty of care does.

Only if it is demonstrably and project-specifically substantiated that collective roof-edge protection is technically not feasible. This follows from the STOP principle (Working Conditions Decree art. 3.16), the V&G Ontwerpwijzer (Health & Safety Design Guide) Annex H and the European Workplace Directive 2001/45/EC. Anchoring provisions are level 4 of 4 — the lowest level, permitted only where higher levels are demonstrably technically impossible.

No. The Council of State (ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:2875) has expressly ruled that 'short duration' is not a valid exception, unless it is project-specifically demonstrated that the collective measure itself poses a greater hazard. Cost is likewise not a valid reason: the V&G Ontwerpwijzer Annex H states literally that economic causes of a fall hazard are not a valid reason for a measure at a lower level, confirmed by Directive 2001/45/EC. The burden of proof lies with the party who deviates.

Besluit bouwwerken leefomgeving (Bbl 2024), section 4.7.11 | Eurocode 1 NEN-EN 1991-1-4 (wind loading) | NEN-EN 1990 consequence class CC2 (50-year design working life) | EU Directive 92/57/EEC | EU Directive 2001/45/EC | NEN-EN-ISO 14122-3 | NEN-EN 13374 | Scope 12 certificate (solar panels) | V&G Ontwerpwijzer (BNA). See the engineering and standards page.

No. EN 13374 applies only to temporary guardrails with a design working life of 6 months. Permanent use requires assessment against the Eurocode (NEN-EN 1990, design working life ≥ 50 years). A temporary guardrail left in place permanently does not meet the Bbl requirements and offers no demonstrable CE conformity — this considerably increases the building owner's liability risk.

As of 1 September 2024, NEN-EN 17235:2024 is in force as the overarching standard for permanent anchor points and cable/rail systems. Anchor points are thereby treated as a construction product (under the CPR/Bbl), not as PPE. A structural engineer must assess the fixing and substructure against the Eurocode. Specification references to the old EN 795:2012 have thereby lapsed. Additional EU legislation (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/695, 9 April 2025) states that the same performance level is required for both fall prevention and fall restraint.

The chain of liability runs from manufacturer to installer to building owner. Under art. 6:174 of the Dutch Civil Code (liability for structures), the owner of a defective structure is strictly liable — even without fault. Missing or non-conforming roof-edge protection can constitute a defect within the meaning of this article. Insurers can reject claims in the event of non-conformity on grounds of gross negligence. Directors can be held criminally liable under art. 307/308 of the Dutch Criminal Code in the event of death or serious bodily injury through negligence.

The Bbl 2024 requires that a structure can be demonstrated to withstand the governing wind load. Every project — location, building height, terrain roughness, upstand height — is unique. A project-specific Eurocode calculation (NEN-EN 1991-1-4) determines how much ballast is needed and at what spacing the uprights are placed.

Two governing load scenarios are calculated: overturning (roof-inward and roof-outward, both directions) and sliding (friction coefficient μ = 0.7). With every project, Protector Guardrail supplies a Eurocode-compliant wind load calculation as part of the technical dossier.

The Netherlands has three wind zones: Wind zone 1 (North Holland above the Heemskerk–Edam-Volendam line, the Wadden Islands, Markermeer), Wind zone 2 (the rest of North Holland, Groningen, Friesland, Flevoland, South Holland, Zeeland) and Wind zone 3 (the rest of the Netherlands). In addition, a coastal strip (wind zone 0) applies along the entire coast, including the IJsselmeer.

Manufacturers' guidelines are largely based on temporary applications. A permanent application with a 50-year design working life requires considerably more ballast. Protector Guardrail demonstrates this with wind tunnel research: the Eurocode-compliant configuration deviates significantly from the manufacturer instructions for temporary use.

No. The system is fully ballast-mounted and uses no roof penetrations or fixings in the roof structure. The roof protection consists of rubber-granulate strips (1,500×100×15 mm) beneath the feet — this protects the roof covering.

An impact driver with 8 mm and 13 mm hex socket, plus a band saw. No heavy equipment or specialist tools are required.

Protector Guardrail offers support with assembly: you can choose a contractor, a working foreman or a complete installation crew. Support is also offered with the quotation (including roof drawing, logistics and lifting plan), the technical dossier and the annual inspection.

An average project of 100 linear metres is usually installed in a single working day by a certified installer. Larger projects are scheduled on the basis of a roof survey and work preparation.

Yes. The concrete ballast weights (300×300×80 mm) can be delivered directly to the project location, which reduces transport and lifting costs.

Yes. The guardrail is easy to dismantle and can be deployed for future projects. Protector Guardrail operates a deposit scheme for transport frames to encourage reuse.

Only in the initial purchase. Based on TCO analyses over 60 years, a permanent guardrail is around 3.5× cheaper than an anchoring provision. Total cost over 60 years: guardrail €66,004 (€1,100/year) vs. anchoring €230,077 (€3,835/year). The higher TCO of anchoring is driven by: annual inspection of the line system, five-yearly replacement of PPE, mandatory education and training, internal supervision costs on every roof visit, and productivity loss from slower working time while wearing a harness.

The initial purchase difference (around €14,500) is a selling point for the installer, while the annual inspections generate a recurring revenue stream. The client, however, bears the total operating costs — which over 60 years come out €164,000 higher.