Tower cranes are an essential feature of modern construction, particularly on dense urban developments. However, the recent incident in London served as a reminder that they also present one of the most significant public‑safety risks on a construction site if not properly managed.
Earlier this month, a tower‑crane jib collapsed at a West London housing development, triggering evacuations of neighbouring properties (more details can be found here). While no injuries were reported, the incident echoes a number of far more serious failures in recent years. Earlier incidents in Battersea, Worthing, Liverpool and Crewe resulted in multiple fatalities and serious injuries. For developers, contractors and professional teams operating in urban environments, these events underline the importance of robust crane‑management procedures and, in particular, ensuring that all necessary legal permissions and safety processes are in place before lifting operations begin.
Why good procedural compliance matters
Failure to follow appropriate crane‑management procedures can expose project participants to significant legal and financial consequences.
From a regulatory perspective, HSE investigations frequently result in substantial fines where systems for planning, inspection or supervision are found to be inadequate. In the 2006 Battersea incident, the crane operator was fined £750,000 and ordered to pay £100,000 in costs after HSE identified failures in the management and inspection of its crane fleet. The company subsequently entered dissolution.
Civil liability can be equally significant. Damages awarded for injury, especially if these are life altering, can be in the millions.
In addition to fines and damages, crane incidents often lead to injunctions, programme delays, increased insurance premiums and reputational damage. Procedural compliance is therefore not simply a regulatory issue - it is a core commercial risk.
Key procedural requirements
Before carrying out lifting operations, project teams should ensure that appropriate systems and documentation are in place. While requirements will vary depending on the nature of the project and the crane, key steps typically include:
- Obtaining an Oversailing Licence (“OL”) where any part of the crane will oversail neighbouring land or airspace.
- Appointing a suitably qualified Appointed Person (“AP”) to plan and oversee lifting operations.
- Selecting a crane that is appropriate for the site conditions and proposed operations.
- Preparing a risk assessment and method statement, aligned with the CDM Construction Phase Plan.
- Implementing a lifting plan setting out how operations will be planned, supervised and controlled.
- Ensuring crane operators hold valid CPCS certification.
- Carrying out periodic inspections and Thorough Examinations in accordance with BS 7121, LOLER and relevant CPA guidance.
This is not an exhaustive list, and project teams should refer to BS 7121, CIRIA guidance and CPA publications when planning crane operations.
Crane Hire vs Contract Lift
Where a project team does not have the experience or appetite to manage these obligations directly, a Contract Lift arrangement may be preferable to a straightforward crane hire.
Under a Contract Lift, the lifting contractor typically assumes responsibility for supplying certified plant, providing competent personnel (including the AP and crane operator), preparing lifting plans and controlling the lifting operation. While this comes at a higher cost, it can materially reduce risk, particularly on complex or high‑profile urban sites.
Oversailing licences
Oversailing licences are often overlooked, but they are legally critical. Under English law, a landowner’s property includes the airspace above it. Any unauthorised encroachment by a crane jib into that airspace constitutes a trespass.
An OL grants the legal right to oversail adjoining land and is therefore essential where a tower crane cannot be confined within the site boundary. Where a public highway is oversailed, an OL is a statutory requirement under the Highways Act 1980, and failure to obtain one may constitute a criminal offence.
The consequences of not securing an OL can be serious. Aggrieved landowners may seek injunctions to stop works, and the absence of an OL will significantly weaken a project team’s position in any subsequent HSE investigation.
Timescales are frequently underestimated. Local authority OLs typically take at least three months to obtain. Licences from private landowners often take longer and can be more expensive, with fees commonly starting at around £5,000, plus the landowner’s legal costs.
Conclusion
Tower cranes are indispensable on modern construction projects, but they carry inherent risks - particularly in dense urban environments where failures can affect the public as well as those on site.
The current regulatory framework places responsibility squarely on developers, contractors and their professional advisers to ensure that proper procedures are followed. The absence of active monitoring does not mean the absence of scrutiny. When incidents occur, compliance will be examined in detail, and failures in process can have severe legal and commercial consequences.
Early planning, clear allocation of responsibility, and strict adherence to established guidance remain the most effective tools for ensuring that cranes remain assets rather than liabilities.
Linked article
https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/photo-shows-crane-collapsing-west-33549121
![Tile for One Hyde Park Limited v Laing O’Rourke Construction South Limited [2026] - is a BLO a realistic route for One Hyde Park?](https://images.passle.net/fit-in/860x860/Passle/611cdc4cfac91e0bc434389f/SearchServiceImages/2026-03-10-16-28-55-943-69b046c7f43b34ce174fb377.jpg "Tile for One Hyde Park Limited v Laing O’Rourke Construction South Limited [2026] - is a BLO a realistic route for One Hyde Park?")
