Method statements and risk assessments are documents that get produced for every package on every site, signed off, filed, and largely forgotten until something goes wrong. This is the wrong way to think about them. Where they are treated as live operational documents — read, briefed, applied, and updated as conditions change — they protect the workforce, the principal contractor, the developer, and the contractor that produced them. Where they are treated as paperwork, they protect nobody.
What these documents actually do
A risk assessment identifies the hazards associated with a piece of work, evaluates the likelihood and severity of harm, and defines the control measures that reduce the risk to an acceptable level. A method statement describes how the work will be carried out — sequence, plant, materials, personnel, and the control measures that the risk assessment identified. Together, they form the operational plan for the work that has been agreed, briefed, and signed off before the work begins.
In scaffolding, the risk profile is significant. Scaffolds are erected at height, frequently in proximity to other operations, often in conditions where wind, weather, or ground conditions can introduce additional hazards. The work involves lifting, handling, and securing components that themselves represent fall-from-height risks during erection and dismantling. A risk assessment that captures these hazards properly, and a method statement that defines how they are controlled, is the difference between a scaffold operation that runs safely and one that depends on luck.
Why generic templates do not work
The temptation across the construction industry is to maintain template risk assessments and method statements that get copied across projects with minimal adaptation. This produces documents that look comprehensive but bear little relationship to the actual work. A generic scaffolding risk assessment that does not address the specific site, the specific structure, the specific weather exposure, or the specific interface with other trades is a document that has been produced for compliance, not for safety.
Globe Cambridge’s risk assessments and method statements are produced for the specific scaffold being erected on the specific site. Generic content is the starting point, not the deliverable. Site-specific hazards — overhead services, public proximity, traffic routes, adjacent excavations — are captured. Site-specific control measures — exclusion zones, traffic management, inspection regimes — are defined. Where the work involves trades using the scaffold afterwards, the documents address the interface with those trades.
The briefing process matters as much as the document
A risk assessment that has been produced and filed but not properly briefed to the operatives carrying out the work is no protection. The operatives have to understand the hazards, the controls, and their role in maintaining the controls. This briefing has to happen before work begins, has to be documented, and has to be repeated if the work changes or new operatives are mobilised.
Across Globe Cambridge operations, briefing is structured around documented procedures under the Globe Group’s ISO 9001 framework. Operatives sign on to confirm they have been briefed and understood the content. Where the work changes — new phase, new plot type, new adjacent operation — the briefing is refreshed. This is what turns the documents from filing into protection.
CDM 2015 and the principal contractor’s position
Under CDM 2015, the principal contractor is required to plan, manage, and monitor the construction phase to ensure health and safety. Method statements and risk assessments from contractors are part of the evidence that this duty is being discharged. The principal contractor reviews the documents, satisfies themselves that the work is properly planned, and uses the documents as the basis for managing the contractor’s activity on site.
Documents that are properly produced, properly briefed, and properly applied support the principal contractor’s CDM compliance position directly. Documents that are perfunctory create exposure. The cost difference is small. The consequence difference is significant.
Updating documents through the work
Risk assessments and method statements are not static. As work progresses, conditions change. Other trades arrive on site. Weather changes. Modifications are made to the scaffold. The original documents may no longer reflect the current situation. The discipline of updating them when conditions change is part of what keeps them useful.
Where Globe Cambridge identifies a change that affects the risk assessment or method statement — a new adjacent operation, a modification request, a change in weather exposure — the documents are reviewed, updated where required, and re-briefed. The audit trail is maintained as part of the project’s documentation.
What this means at procurement stage
For QSs and principal contractors evaluating scaffolding tenders, the question to ask is not whether the contractor produces method statements and risk assessments. They all do. The question is how site-specific they are, how the briefing process works, and how updates are handled when conditions change. The answer to these questions tells you whether the documents will be useful or whether they will be filing.
Talk to Globe Cambridge
To discuss scaffold operations on your forthcoming project, contact Globe Cambridge on 01223 890727 or email enquiries@theglobegroup.co.uk.
