Working near overhead power lines: lessons from a fatal HSE prosecution

What happened?

The incident occurred at a property in Farndon, Chester, on 29 July 2024.

Twenty-four-year-old trainee painter Connor Lambert was working with his stepfather, Daniel Watton, trading as Inside Out Painters and Decorators Property Maintenance.

Mr Lambert was killed while a fully extended ladder was being moved near overhead power lines. HSE reported that the ladder either contacted the line or came close enough for an electrical arc to form.

Following an HSE investigation, Mr Watton pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

At Warrington Magistrates' Court on 6 October 2026 he received a 16-week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, and was ordered to pay £10,645 in costs.

The prosecution concerned painting and property-maintenance work, but the practical lessons apply much more widely across construction.

What does regulation 4 require?

Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 requires work at height to be properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out, so far as reasonably practicable, safely.

Planning also includes the appropriate selection of work equipment.

That matters because safe work at height is not simply about preventing a fall. The chosen method must also take account of other hazards created by the equipment and the location.

A ladder may therefore appear suitable when considering height alone but be unsuitable where its length and movement create a serious electrical risk.

You do not need to touch the line

One of the most important points in HSE's guidance is that physical contact with a live overhead line is not necessary for serious injury or death.

Electricity can flash over when a person, vehicle or item of equipment comes sufficiently close to a conductor.

HSE identifies equipment commonly encountered on construction sites — including cranes, MEWPs, scaffold poles, tipper vehicles and ladders — as presenting particular risks near overhead lines.

A risk assessment based simply on “we will not touch the cable” is therefore inadequate.

What does HSE say about distance?

HSE's general electrical-safety guidance says that work should not be undertaken where equipment such as a ladder, crane jib, tipper body or scaffold pole could come within a minimum of 6 metres of an overhead power line without taking advice.

Its ladder guidance similarly says not to work within 6 metres horizontally of an overhead power line unless appropriate precautions have been taken, such as the line being made dead or suitably protected.

The precise controls required depend on the site and the electrical infrastructure. The 6-metre guidance should not be treated as permission to work just outside that distance without further assessment.

Where work may approach overhead lines, the line owner or Distribution Network Operator should be contacted and the work properly planned.

Short jobs still require planning

HSE's construction guidance makes clear that precautions are needed even where work near overhead lines is of short duration.

That is especially relevant to smaller contractors and specialist subcontractors. Serious risks can arise during apparently routine activities such as moving ladders, raising scaffold poles, unloading materials, operating a tipper or repositioning plant.

A task being quick or familiar does not make the electrical hazard insignificant.

What should contractors do before starting work?

1. Identify the lines before mobilisation

Overhead lines should form part of the site survey and risk assessment. Do not wait until workers arrive with equipment before considering the electrical risk.

2. Assume lines are live

A line should not be treated as dead merely because it appears disused. HSE advises contacting the line owner before work begins.

3. Eliminate the danger where reasonably practicable

The safest option may be isolation, diversion or a different work method that keeps workers and equipment out of the danger area.

4. Select equipment around the actual risk

The question is not simply whether a ladder, MEWP, scaffold or crane can perform the task. It is whether that equipment can be used safely in the particular location, including when it is moved or raised.

5. Control access

Depending on the work and site, controls can include exclusion zones, barriers, warning notices, goalposts and physical limitations on plant movement.

6. Supervise the method actually being used

A written risk assessment has limited value if workers subsequently use different equipment or move it into an uncontrolled area. Supervision needs to test whether the planned method is actually being followed.

7. Stop if circumstances change

Weather, access, sequencing, deliveries or plant changes can alter the risk. If the work method changes materially, the assessment and method statement should be reconsidered before work continues.

Competence matters

The Work at Height Regulations contain competence requirements, and HSE emphasised the need for adequate training and supervision following this prosecution.

That is particularly important where trainees or inexperienced workers are involved. A business cannot assume that an inexperienced worker will recognise an electrical-clearance problem or appreciate the danger presented by moving a long object near an overhead conductor.

This is also a management issue

The lesson is not confined to the individual handling the equipment. Site managers, contractors and those organising work should consider whether their systems reliably identify overhead electrical hazards before work begins.

Useful questions include:

• Are overhead lines recorded during site set-up?
• Do RAMS specifically identify electrical clearances?
• Who contacts the Distribution Network Operator or other line owner?
• Who decides whether isolation or diversion is necessary?
• Are plant operators and subcontractors told where exclusion zones are?
• Does the method statement deal with moving equipment as well as using it?
• Who checks that planned equipment has not been substituted on site?
• Are trainees and inexperienced workers adequately supervised?

What does the prosecution establish?

The prosecution does not introduce a new legal rule. The duties under the Work at Height Regulations and established electrical-safety guidance were already in place.

Its significance is practical: it demonstrates how those duties can apply to relatively ordinary work carried out by a small contractor, and how serious criminal consequences can follow where high-risk work is not properly planned and controlled.