Powered access survey: contractors reveal challenges and opportunities

The survey makes one thing clear from the outset – decision-making around powered access remains firmly rooted in the realities of construction sites.

Project type and site conditions are by far the most influential factors when selecting equipment, followed by lifting height, outreach capability and core safety features. 

From a delivery perspective, this aligns with the realities of large-scale projects. As Richard Miles, project director at Sir Robert McAlpine, explains: “On large projects, particularly high bay warehouses and major structures, almost every trade is working at height. Steel erectors, cladding teams, M&E, sprinklers, fire protection – they all rely on powered access because that’s where the bulk of their work is located.”

This widespread use reinforces why equipment selection is so closely tied to the specifics of each project environment.

While powered access is widely regarded as safer than traditional methods, the survey highlights that risk awareness remains high.

Ground conditions emerge as the most commonly cited hazard, followed closely by issues related to training and supervision. These are systemic challenges, shaped by site conditions and human factors rather than equipment failure alone.

As Neil Rosiak, director of health, safety and wellbeing at Tilbury Douglas, notes: “Poor ground conditions and inadequate supervision or training are identified as the sector’s most common hazards in this survey. Ground-related incidents are often less about the physical terrain and more about planning, temporary works input and incorrect assumptions about ground bearing capacity.

“IPAF’s global data reflects this, with overturns, entrapments and loss of control frequently linked to ground issues, operator competence and risk assessment rather than equipment failure.”

Miles reinforces this from a site perspective, highlighting how these risks manifest in practice.

“We’ve seen machines sink where ground has been backfilled, particularly around column foundation bases where the compacted backfill can become saturated over time,” he explains. “At height, even small movements are exaggerated, and that’s where you start to see instability.”

Together, these insights underline a consistent theme: safety risks are rarely isolated. They are the result of how equipment interacts with real-world site conditions.

The survey highlights training and supervision as critical factors, and both industry voices emphasise the importance of structured approaches to competence.

Rosiak points to the need for organisation-wide capability. “We operate a strict requirement that all [MEWP] operators are formally trained and competent, and we have also trained our managers in ‘MEWPs for Managers’ to ensure effective supervision.”

Miles describes how this has evolved on major projects over time: “Years ago, people would just commandeer a MEWP and use it. Now it’s mandated – you need the right certification, you need to be trained, and you need to understand how to use it safely.”

He also highlights the importance of planning for incidents, not just preventing them. “We always have rescue plans in place, with trained personnel out on site,” he says. “If someone is suspended in a harness, you’ve got a limited window to get them down safely, so everyone needs to know their role and rehearsed the plan.”

Additional safety controls, including exclusion zones, trained ground support or ‘buddy systems’, and secondary guarding, can further reinforce these structured approaches.

The survey findings indicate that innovation is most valued when it directly addresses operational challenges, particularly those linked to safety and site constraints.

Technologies such as anti-entrapment systems, stability controls and access restrictions are increasingly embedded into equipment design.

Miles highlights how some of these innovations have emerged in response to real-world issues.

“We started to see things like PIN-controlled access and proximity sensors coming in for MEWPS,” he says. “That helped minimise unauthorised use and made the equipment safer, especially on busy sites working seven days a week.”

He also points to the role of collaboration with plant hire providers in driving these improvements: “We worked closely with plant hire companies on issues like rescue planning and equipment selection. On larger projects, having them based on site with spare machines and maintenance support made a huge difference.”

At the same time, there is growing recognition that innovation must extend beyond equipment itself.

As Rosiak notes: “More scenario-based learning, stronger supervisor training and regular refreshers, supported by technologies such as virtual and augmented reality, could help close this gap.”

This signals the need for a wider shift from standalone product innovation toward a more holistic approach that encompasses systems, training and operational delivery.

Sustainability is emerging as an important consideration, but the survey results indicate it is not yet a primary driver of decision-making.

In practice, the transition to lower-emission equipment is shaped by operational constraints.

Miles describes the reality on site: “We’ve moved toward electric machines and alternatives like green diesel, but on large sites you’re often still relying on generators for temporary power”. 

“There’s a bit of irony in charging batteries on electric equipment from diesel-powered systems, but that’s the reality in remote locations until you have a mains power supply available.”

Battery performance also remains a limiting factor for certain applications. “On some projects, machines are working 15 hours a day, over two shifts,” he says. “We haven’t yet seen battery-powered equipment that can consistently meet that demand at scale.”

At the same time, sustainability pressures are beginning to influence procurement decisions, particularly in sensitive environments.

“For some projects – especially in city centre locations or historic buildings – electric equipment isn’t optional. You need low noise, zero emissions, and machines that can physically fit into constrained spaces.”

Rosiak reflects on the industry’s evolving sustainability agenda: “While sustainability is not always a primary driver in plant selection, this is likely to increase as carbon requirements become more prominent.”

The survey also highlights increasing demand for better guidance, clearer site suitability information and stronger collaboration across the supply chain.

Rosiak emphasises this shift: “The findings highlight a growing expectation for clearer site suitability guidance, more advanced operator training and closer collaboration between contractors, manufacturers and training providers.”

Miles echoes this from a delivery standpoint, noting the value of integrated support.

“On larger projects, having plant hire teams embedded on site – with maintenance, backup equipment and flexible hire options – makes a significant difference to productivity and safety,” he says.

This points to a broader industry trend, with supply chains moving from transactional relationships toward more collaborative, solution-led partnerships.

Overall, the survey findings and industry perspectives reflect a sector that is both pragmatic and progressive.

Safety, reliability and operational performance remain the foundation of decision-making, while innovation is welcomed when it delivers clear, practical benefits. But ultimately, progress will rely on stronger collaboration and more joined-up thinking across the industry. 

As Rosiak concludes: “Improving safety will depend on earlier planning, stronger competence and better integration across the industry.”

Construction Management surveyed 115 built environment professionals with experience in the powered access sector between September and November 2025.

The breakdown of the respondents was as follows: