One of the most common and costly mistakes in working-at-height procurement is specifying an access method before fully
understanding the building, the scope, and the constraints. A contractor that defaults to rope access for every job, or one that automatically quotes scaffold, is not giving your building the independent assessment it deserves.

At CAM, we carry out an access feasibility review on every project before recommending a method. Here is how we think about the decision.

Rope access and abseiling — best for complex geometry and restricted locations

Rope access is the right choice when buildings have restricted ground footprints, complex facade geometry, heritage constraints that rule out platform equipment, or tight programme windows that cannot accommodate scaffold erection time. It is also highly cost-effective for reactive maintenance jobs where the scope is clearly defined, and the anchor infrastructure is already in place. Our IRATA-certified operatives are trained to Level 3, and rope access remains CAM’s most deployed method across London’s high-rise commercial stock.

MEWPs — best for accessible sites and large-area programmes

Mobile elevated work platforms are the most efficient solution when ground access is available, and the scope involves large, repetitive areas at lower to mid-level heights. For wide-frontage commercial buildings, retail units, or sites with adequate hardstanding, a MEWP allows multiple operatives to work simultaneously and complete large-area programmes faster than rope teams. CAM’s operatives are IPAF-trained, and we deploy MEWPs routinely across our maintenance and cleaning programmes where the building permits it.

BMUs — best for buildings with permanent access infrastructure

Building maintenance units are the correct access method for buildings specifically designed around them — typically high-specification commercial towers and curtain wall buildings where the BMU is integral to the maintenance strategy. CAM has experience operating BMUs across major London commercial buildings and works within the client’s BMU maintenance protocols as standard.

When the scaffold is justified

Scaffold is not always the wrong answer. Long-duration major refurbishment programmes where multiple trades require simultaneous platform access, or buildings with no existing anchor infrastructure and restricted overhead rigging options, can genuinely be better served by a temporary scaffold structure. We will say so when that is the case.

CAM’s approach: method follows building, not habit

The right access method reduces cost, reduces programme time, and reduces risk. At CAM, we assess each building on its own terms — and our multi-method capability means we are never forced to recommend a method because it is the only one we have. If you have existing quotes on your desk, we are happy to review the access methodology and provide an independent assessment. Contact CAM.