DIY Window
Cleaning Lab
Menu

Planning sheet 03 · Conservative decision composer

High-window access decision

Eight questions compose a conservative planning state for one high window. The sheet checks hazards first, then prefers inside and ground methods, and otherwise hands the task to competent access planning. It is not a compliance checker, and it never selects a ladder, tower, platform or product.

Is this paid/commercial work, or private DIY?
Is safe cleaning from inside practicable for this glass?
Can the glass be viewed from the ground without obstruction?
Can the task be completed from the ground with an entered, checked method?
Are overhead electrical hazards absent — checked and verified?
Are weather and control conditions acceptable?
Are ground conditions, hoses, public exclusion and the site controlled?
Is the operator competent for the selected work equipment?
Is an existing safe place of work already available?

Decision order: unresolved hazard or unknown decisive condition → STOP · inside practicable → plan inside first · complete ground-method evidence → plan the ground method · otherwise → competent access planning required.

Worked example — fixed entered values

Planning state
Ground-based method fits the entered geometry, subject to site-specific checks

Planning notes

  • The entered answers describe a checked ground-level method with the glass in view. Plan that method; it still needs its own site checks on the day.
  • Ground-based work still carries its own hazards: hoses, footing, handling and passers-by remain live planning points.
  • Private DIY: this hierarchy is a conservative planning framework, not a legal determination about your task.

Paid work and private DIY are different problems

For paid or commercial window cleaning, work at height is regulated: the Work at Height Regulations 2005 place duties on employers and anyone who controls the work, which must be properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out by competent people, avoiding work at height where reasonably practicable. This sheet mirrors that avoid-first sequence but does not discharge any duty — a paid job needs its own risk assessment and planning by whoever controls the work.

For private DIY, those regulations do not apply to you as a householder — the sheet is a conservative planning framework, not a legal determination. The physics of falling is indifferent to the legal position, which is why the same order is worth following at home: inside first, then ground methods, then a decision by someone competent to plan access.

Worked example — fixed entered values

The example answers describe a private DIY task where inside cleaning is not practicable, the glass is visible from the ground, a checked ground method exists, hazards are verified absent, conditions and the site are controlled, and the operator is confident with the kit. The sheet composes: “Ground-based method fits the entered geometry, subject to site-specific checks” — plan the ground method, then re-check everything on the day. Change the electrical, weather or site answer to “no” or “unknown” and the state becomes “STOP — resolve the hazard before work”.

Sources used on this sheet