Also online at www. dijonline. co. uk
Automated Gates & Barriers with“ reduced mental, physical or sensory capabilities”, whose needs may affect( even on a temporary basis) their ability to use or respond to a powered entrance safely. As a result, powered pedestrian doors in more general traffic areas should be regarded as high risk where previously they might not have been.
Darren explains:“ The important question is no longer simply,‘ Is this a building predominantly used by vulnerable people?’ We have to consider whether a vulnerable person could reasonably use that entrance and what the consequences could be.
“ That changes the conversation. A door doesn’ t become lower risk simply because most of the people passing through it are fit and able. The risk assessment has to consider those users who may be more susceptible to injury and make sure appropriate safeguards are in place.”
The revised definitions sharpen that distinction. A high-risk scenario is one in which a vulnerable person could be using the door system; a low-risk scenario is a controlled environment in which all users are not defined as vulnerable. ADSA believes this is likely to mean that virtually all powered pedestrian doors in general traffic areas will need to be treated as high risk. For powered systems, this has a direct consequence for safeguarding: in high-risk scenarios, measures should applied to prevent users from coming into contact with the moving door or system.
A Much Broader Standard
The revised BS 7036 also reflects how much the entrance sector itself has changed.
When ADSA helped develop the industry’ s original code of practice, which subsequently formed the basis of BS 7036:1988, the focus was powered pedestrian doors. Today, entrances increasingly incorporate speed lanes, powered turnstiles, access control and other technologies as part of integrated building systems.
The new BS 7036 therefore expands beyond powered pedestrian doors to provide risk-assessment guidance for entrance control equipment covered by BS EN 17352, as well as manually operated revolving doors and turnstiles. ADSA’ s own material on the consultation describes the revision as strengthening guidance around user vulnerability, risk assessment and safety.
GEZE UK- Glasgow Fort
That expansion is particularly significant because BS EN 17352 itself excludes certain uses involving vulnerable people, people with special needs and unsupervised children under eight from its scope. The revised BS 7036 is intended to provide additional practical risk-assessment guidance around these environments.
“ Entrance technology has moved on considerably and the boundaries between different systems are less obvious than they once were,” says Darren.“ We now have powered doors, speed lanes, turnstiles and access control working together within the same entrance environment.
“ What BS 7036 gives us is a common risk-assessment approach. Instead of looking at each product in isolation, we can consider how people interact with the complete entrance and make decisions based on the risks presented in that particular application.”
From Compliance to Competence
For today’ s specifiers and technicians, knowing the standards cannot simply mean memorising a set of dimensions and assuming that makes every installation safe. They increasingly need to understand the standards, identify hazards, assess the particular environment and make a competent judgement about the appropriate risk-reduction measures.
This mirrors ADSA’ s approach to certification renewal, where candidates are encouraged to return to the standards and find answers rather than simply memorise
information. The approach is intended to strengthen technical knowledge against the backdrop of the Building Safety Act and the industry’ s increasing focus on competence.
Adds Darren:“ Compliance isn’ t a tickbox exercise. Two apparently identical doors can present very different risks depending on where they’ re installed and who is using them. Competence is about being able to recognise those differences, undertake the appropriate risk assessment and apply the standards correctly.”
What Does This Mean in Practice?
The significance of that approach becomes clearer when considering how seemingly straightforward entrance applications can present very different risks.
Consider a powered pedestrian door in a commercial office. At first glance, it may appear a relatively straightforward application, serving predominantly independently mobile adults. But its users will not be uniform.
Visitors may include older people, children or those with reduced mobility, impaired vision or other vulnerabilities, e. g. the affects of temporary medication. Risk assessment therefore needs to look beyond the predominant user profile and consider who could reasonably encounter the door – and the potential consequences of contact.
> Continues on the next page >
Door Industry Journal Autumn 2026
67