Common questions builders ask about method statements.
Is a method statement a legal requirement?
There is no single piece of UK legislation that says ‘you must produce a method statement.’ However, the underlying obligation is clear. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, every employer must plan and organise work so it can be carried out safely. Under CDM 2015, contractors must plan, manage, and monitor construction work to ensure it is carried out without risks to health and safety. A method statement is the recognised way the construction industry meets these duties. It shows how you intend to carry out the work safely, step by step. In practice, principal contractors will almost always require a method statement before they let you on site, and many domestic clients now ask for one as well. If the HSE investigates an incident on your site and you cannot demonstrate that you planned the work properly, the absence of a method statement will count against you. So while the document itself is not named in law, the duty to plan safe systems of work very much is — and a method statement is the standard way to evidence that planning. For any work involving significant risk, you should treat it as essential.
What is the difference between a method statement and a risk assessment?
A risk assessment and a method statement serve different but complementary purposes, and understanding the distinction is important. The risk assessment comes first. It identifies the hazards associated with a piece of work, evaluates how likely someone is to be harmed and how severe that harm could be, and sets out the control measures you will put in place to reduce the risk. It answers the question: ‘What could go wrong, and how do we prevent it?’ The method statement takes those control measures and weaves them into a step-by-step description of how the work will actually be done. It describes the sequence of operations, the tools and equipment, the materials, the PPE, the people involved, and the emergency procedures. It answers the question: ‘Here is exactly how we are going to do this work safely.’ Think of the risk assessment as the analysis and the method statement as the plan of action. In practice, the two documents are almost always combined into a single RAMS (Risk Assessment and Method Statement). The risk assessment informs the method statement — you cannot write a sensible method statement without first identifying the hazards and deciding on controls. Equally, a risk assessment without a method statement leaves a gap: you have identified the risks but not explained how the work will be done safely in practice.
How long should a method statement be?
There is no fixed length requirement for a method statement, and longer does not mean better. The legal standard is that it must be ‘suitable and sufficient’ — it needs to cover the work adequately without being so long that nobody reads it. For a straightforward task like replacing a section of guttering, a method statement might be two to three pages. For a complex operation like a structural steel erection or a basement excavation next to a party wall, it could be ten pages or more. The key is that every step of the work is described clearly, every significant hazard is addressed, and every control measure is specific enough to be understood and followed. A common mistake is padding out a method statement with generic waffle to make it look more thorough. Phrases like ‘all appropriate safety measures will be observed’ add nothing. Far better to have a shorter document that is specific and practical than a long one full of meaningless filler. If a competent person who has never visited your site could read the method statement and understand exactly what work is being done, what hazards exist, and what controls are in place, it is long enough. If they cannot, it needs more detail — regardless of how many pages it already has.
Do I need a separate method statement for each task?
It depends on the scope and nature of the work. If you are carrying out a single, well-defined task — such as installing a new flat roof — one method statement covering the entire job is usually sufficient, provided it addresses every phase of the work and every significant hazard. However, if a project involves multiple distinct activities with different risk profiles, you may need separate method statements for each. For example, on a house extension project, you might have separate method statements for groundworks and excavation, structural steelwork, roofing, and electrical first fix, because each involves different hazards, different equipment, and potentially different teams of workers. The test is whether a single document can clearly and comprehensively cover all the work. If combining everything into one method statement makes it confusing or means important details get buried, split it up. Principal contractors often prefer task-specific method statements because they can be briefed to the relevant team and reviewed independently. On the other hand, for a small job where one team does everything, a single comprehensive method statement avoids duplication and keeps things simple. The Site Book lets you create method statements at whatever level of detail makes sense for your project, so you can choose the approach that works best.
Can I use AI to write my method statement?
Yes, and when used properly, AI can significantly improve the quality of your method statements while saving you time. The key word is ‘properly.’ A method statement must be site-specific and reflect the actual work, hazards, and conditions on your project. If you ask a generic AI chatbot to ‘write a method statement for roofing,’ you will get a generic document that does not meet the legal standard. It will not know about the fragile roof lights on your specific building, the overhead power line at the rear of the property, or the narrow access that prevents a cherry picker from reaching the south elevation. The Site Book takes a different approach. It asks you to describe your job — the site, the work, the conditions — and then creates a method statement that is tailored to your specific project. It draws on construction industry knowledge to suggest hazards you might not have considered, recommend appropriate control measures, and structure the document professionally. But you remain in control throughout: you review every section, add or remove steps, and approve the final document before it is created. This gives you the best of both worlds — the speed and consistency of AI, combined with your site-specific knowledge and professional judgement. The result is a method statement that is genuinely useful on site, not just a piece of paper to keep the principal contractor happy.