Back when I built my house, I designed the bathroom specifically so the motor access panel would be hidden inside the vanity (which is right next to where the pump is located). The inspector had no problem with this, and as the homeowner, I understood that a major failure of the tub plumbing would likely require breaking out the whole front of the tile surround because no scuttle of any reasonable size would provide access to all of the plumbing.
The bathroom had already passed final inspection with the tile in place, but the plumber was adamant that it needed a scuttle on the front face of the surround (which, by the way, would not provide access to the pump). He was specifically told by the GC and myself that we didn't need to do that, and that the situation was already discussed with the inspector.
The next day I came to the house to do some of the woodwork and discovered that the plumber had taken a hammer to the tiles. He didn't even create a scuttle, but simply had broken the tiles where one could go in a misguided attempt to force one to be there.
He was summarily fired. Not just from the project, but by his employer too.
Code is supposed to be there to protect the interests of the home owner, but sometimes that purpose gets lost. If breaking out the tiles would be necessary to service the plumbing (not the pump), then what difference does it make if that is done during construction versus 17 years later when an actual problem may appear?