Scaffolding Risk Assessment (UK — WAH 2005 & TG20:21)
By the Riskora Editorial Team · Written to our editorial standards
The HSE prosecutes scaffolding falls more than any other construction activity — and the documentary failure is almost always the same: a generic "work at height" assessment that doesn't name the scaffold type, the load class, or the SG4:22 collective fall-arrest arrangement. This builder produces scaffolding risk assessments aligned with WAH 2005, NASC TG20:21 and SG4:22 so the document survives principal-contractor review. Free first PDF, no card.
UK (RAMS) example document — Two-Storey Rear Extension — 14 Birchwood Lane, Reading. Client: Mr & Mrs A. Whitfield (Private Client). Site: 14 Birchwood Lane, Reading, RG1 5JT. Scope: Construction of a two-storey rear extension (6.4m × 4.2m) to an existing semi-detached dwelling. Works comprise breaking out of existing rear elevation, trench-fill foundations to 1.0m, traditional cavity blockwork to first floor, pre-stressed concrete lintels, timber roof structure with natural slate finish, plus alterations to existing rear wall to form structural opening with rolled steel joist (RSJ 203×102 UB23). Works programmed over 9 weeks with a peak site team of 6 operatives. Hazards assessed: Manual handling — blocks, lintels, plasterboard, Working at height — independent scaffold & roof structure, Buried services strike during excavation, Collapse of excavation / trench wall, Hand-arm vibration (HAVS) — breaking out, drilling, Silica dust — cutting blocks, brick, concrete, Vehicle/pedestrian segregation — narrow domestic street.
Full version
What does a UK scaffolding risk assessment need to cover?
It must record: the scaffold type (tube-and-fitting, system, mobile tower), the TG20:21 or bespoke design reference, the load class and intended use, ground bearing and tie pattern, the SG4:22 collective fall-protection sequence during erection / alteration / dismantle, the CISRS competency level of the operatives, edge protection on the working platform, public protection where over highway or footpath, and the inspection regime (pre-use, 7-day, after alteration or adverse weather). Generic 'work at height — wear harness' documents fail principal-contractor review.
Three failures show up on almost every rejected scaffolding RAMS
Principal contractors and CDM clients reject scaffolding risk assessments for the same three reasons: the document doesn't name the scaffold type or the TG20:21 / bespoke design reference, the erection sequence assumes harness-only fall protection instead of the SG4:22 collective sequence, and the inspection regime is missing the 7-day cycle. The Riskora wizard forces each of those before download. For the wider work-at-height framework see work at height risk assessment.
How Riskora Helps
Riskora's scaffolding preset is built from WAH 2005, NASC TG20:21, SG4:22 and the CISRS competency framework. You confirm scaffold type, height, load class and ground conditions, the builder produces the hazard register, SG4:22-sequenced erection method, edge-protection schedule and inspection regime. The download mirrors the structure principal-contractor reviewers look for. Compare against the wider best UK risk assessment software.
Who it's for
- Scaffolding contractors producing site-specific RAMS per erection
- Principal contractors reviewing subcontractor scaffold documentation
- Main contractors producing tower scaffold assessments for in-house use
- Roofing, M&E and refurbishment trades documenting access scaffold reliance
- Temporary works coordinators (TWC) wrapping a bespoke design in a usable assessment
Understand the Fundamentals
Before you generate your document, these guides cover the knowledge that underpins every good RAMS, risk assessment, and method statement.
RAMS for Scaffolding
The full method statement side of the pack — sequence of erection, isolation, handover.
Work at Height Risk Assessment
The parent WAH 2005 document when scaffold is one of several access methods on the same job.
Working at Height RAMS for Scaffolders
Trade-hazard angle on the same activity — useful when SG4:22 sequencing is the dominant risk.
Risk Assessment Examples (UK)
Worked examples showing the depth UK reviewers expect across construction trades.
UK Risk Assessment Legal Requirements
Where WAH 2005 sits relative to MHSWR 1999 and CDM 2015.
Best UK Risk Assessment Software
How Riskora compares to HandsHQ, SafetyCulture and HASpod for scaffolding work.
Do I need a bespoke scaffold design or is TG20:21 enough?
TG20:21 covers most basic tube-and-fitting scaffolds up to 24m to working platform, with standard tie patterns and load classes 1–3. Anything outside the eGuide envelope — sheeting, fans, loading bays, cantilevers, bridges, scaffolds over 24m, load class 4–6, or temporary works supporting permanent loads — needs a bespoke design produced by a TWC and signed off by a TWS. The risk assessment must reference the design number and the TG20 envelope or bespoke designer.
What is SG4:22 and why does it matter on the risk assessment?
SG4:22 is the NASC Code of Practice for preventing falls during scaffold erection, alteration and dismantling. It replaces the old assumption that a scaffolder accepts the risk of working without edge protection. The current standard requires collective fall-protection (advanced guardrails, step-ups, lift-by-lift assembly) before personal harness use. An assessment that opens with 'scaffolder to clip on at all times' is documenting the wrong control hierarchy.
How often must a scaffold be inspected once it's up?
Under WAH 2005 reg 12 and Schedule 7: a pre-use check, an inspection by a competent person before first use, every 7 days thereafter, after any alteration, and after any event likely to have affected stability (high wind, impact, frost). Results recorded in the scaffold register or scafftag. The risk assessment should name the inspection regime and the competent person.
Key Risks and Considerations
- •Falls during erection, alteration or dismantle (SG4:22 sequence missing)
- •Scaffold collapse from inadequate ties, base plates or sole boards
- •Falling materials onto operatives, public or adjacent buildings
- •Overloading the platform beyond the design load class
- •Adverse weather — wind loading on sheeted scaffolds
- •Unauthorised access (children, third parties) outside working hours
What UK Law Actually Says
Direct quotes from the named regulations, with plain-English explanations of what each one means in practice.
Regulation 6, Work at Height Regulations 2005
“Every employer shall ensure that work is not carried out at height where it is reasonably practicable to carry out the work safely otherwise than at height. Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.”
Reg 6 sets the hierarchy: avoid working at height, then prevent the fall (collective protection — guardrails, scaffolds), then arrest the fall (harness as the last resort). A scaffolding assessment that opens with PPE has already inverted the hierarchy the regulation demands.
Read the source on legislation.gov.uk →Regulation 12 & Schedule 7, Work at Height Regulations 2005
“Every employer shall ensure that, where a working platform is used to carry out construction work…it is inspected in that position before being taken into use, at suitable intervals (not exceeding 7 days), and after any event likely to have affected its stability.”
Reg 12 plus Schedule 7 is where the 7-day inspection requirement comes from. It is not a NASC best-practice suggestion — it is statute. The assessment must name the competent inspector and the recording mechanism (scafftag, register).
Read the source on legislation.gov.uk →The Numbers Behind the Risk
Why this matters — the most recent published figures from the Health and Safety Executive and ONS.
50 worker deaths from falls from height in 2023/24
Falls from height remain the single largest cause of fatal injury to UK workers, accounting for around half of all construction fatalities. Scaffold-related falls during erection, alteration and dismantle are over-represented within that total.
Source: HSE — Fatal injuries in Great Britain →Construction = 38 fatalities in 2023/24
Construction remains the highest-risk industry for fatal injury in Great Britain. Scaffold and access-equipment incidents drive a disproportionate share. NASC's annual safety report records that scaffolders themselves remain heavily over-represented in fall-from-height statistics, which is why SG4:22 was tightened.
Source: HSE — Construction statistics 2024 →Side-by-side: a tower scaffold mistake that gets prosecuted
Weak example. Activity: "Mobile tower scaffold to install soffits". Hazard: "Fall from height". Control: "Operative to wear harness, tower to be moved with care".
Why it fails. Mobile towers are PASMA territory — the assessment names no PASMA competency, no 3T (Through-The-Trapdoor) or AGR (Advance Guardrail) erection method, no outrigger schedule, no ground-condition check and no ban on moving the tower with people or materials on it. The HSE has multiple prosecutions for exactly this scenario after a fall during repositioning.
Passing example. Activity: "Erect 5.2m PASMA-compliant mobile aluminium tower (Boss Clima or equivalent) to install timber soffit panels, north elevation, on level concrete apron". Method: "3T erection by PASMA card holder; stabilisers/outriggers fitted to manufacturer's spec; tower never moved with operative or materials on platform; max wind speed 17 mph (Beaufort 4) by handheld anemometer". Controls: "Daily pre-use check, weekly inspection logged, edge protection on all four sides, kick-board fitted, manufacturer's instruction kept at base". The difference is the equipment standard, the competency card and the no-move-with-load rule named explicitly.
Common Mistakes (and How to Avoid Them)
1. Generic 'work at height' assessment with no scaffold type
Why it fails: Reviewers cannot tell whether the document covers a 3m tower or a 30m sheeted independent scaffold. TG20:21 vs bespoke design routing is invisible.
Fix: Name the scaffold type, height, load class and TG20:21 envelope reference or bespoke design number at the top of the document. The wizard requires it before download.
2. Harness-first fall protection during erection
Why it fails: SG4:22 requires collective fall-protection (advance guardrail, step-ups) before personal fall-arrest. Naming a harness as the primary control inverts the hierarchy and contradicts NASC guidance.
Fix: Sequence collective protection lift-by-lift; name personal fall-arrest only for locations where collective protection is not reasonably practicable, and list those locations explicitly.
3. No 7-day inspection regime in the document
Why it fails: WAH 2005 reg 12 + Schedule 7 require inspection before first use, every 7 days, after alteration and after adverse weather. Missing it is a statutory breach as well as a documentary gap.
Fix: Schedule the inspection regime, name the competent inspector (CISRS Advanced minimum for tube-and-fitting handover), and link the assessment to the scafftag or register.
4. Public protection by 'barriers in place' only
Why it fails: Footpath / highway / school proximity needs S.169 highways licence consideration, debris netting, brick guards, banksman during lifts and a time-of-day schedule — not a single line.
Fix: List each public-facing edge separately. Where the footprint borders a school or busy footpath, schedule lifts outside peak times and capture the highways licence reference.
Worked example: 9m independent scaffold to a 3-storey commercial extension
Scope. Erect an independent tube-and-fitting scaffold to the north and east elevations of a 3-storey commercial extension. Working platform at 9m, two lifts below for access and material landing. 4-day programme, CISRS Advanced (Part 2) lead scaffolder plus two CISRS Trainees. Footprint borders a school footpath — public protection required outside school hours only (works run 09:30–14:30 by agreement).
Design route. Within TG20:21 envelope (Class 3, basic working platform, ≤24m, standard ties at 4m vertical / 8.5m horizontal grid). eGuide reference TG20-AC-3-9-N recorded on the assessment. No bespoke design required.
SG4:22 erection sequence. Lift-by-lift advance guardrail system fitted before any scaffolder accesses the new lift. Step-ups provided where the working platform is raised. Personal fall-arrest (twin-tail lanyard, full body harness) used only as a back-up where collective protection cannot reasonably be provided — and the assessment names those exact locations (corner returns, tie-in to existing structure). Harness anchorage points listed by lift level.
Public protection. Brick guards on all platform edges facing the footpath; debris netting full height to the school side; banksman on the footpath during material lifts; scaffold lifts inhibited 08:30–09:00 and 14:30–15:30 (school in/out). Highways licence S.169 in place.
Inspection. Handover inspection by CISRS Advanced scaffolder; scafftag fitted; 7-day inspection scheduled in the compliance calendar; trigger inspections after any wind >38 mph (Met Office orange) or impact.
Why it supports a competent review. The assessment names the TG20 envelope reference, sequences SG4:22 collective protection before harness use, schedules the inspection regime, and protects the public by time of day — not by a generic "barriers in place" statement. Each control is auditable on site.
From example to your own document
The wizard above starts you on the same structure as the worked example. Two-line description, confirm scaffold type and height, select TG20:21 or bespoke, and the builder produces the SG4:22 sequence, inspection regime and public-protection block ready for review. First PDF is free, no card.
For the matching method statement see RAMS for scaffolding, or the work-at-height parent document at work at height risk assessment.
Key Features
- Scaffold type routing: tube-and-fitting / system / mobile tower / bespoke
- TG20:21 envelope check vs bespoke-design prompt
- SG4:22 erection sequence with collective fall-protection schedule
- Load class 1–6 and intended-use capture
- 7-day inspection register linked from the assessment
- Public protection prompts (highway, footpath, school)
Example Structure (UK Standard)
- Activity: scaffold type, height, length, location, programme
- Design reference: TG20:21 eGuide ref or bespoke design number + TWS sign-off
- Load class and intended use (general / inspection / heavy duty / masonry)
- Ground conditions: bearing capacity, sole boards, base plates
- Erection sequence under SG4:22 (collective fall-protection lift-by-lift)
- Tie pattern, bracing, and stability arrangement
- Edge protection on completed platform (double guardrail + toeboard)
- Public protection: brick guards, fans, debris netting, highway licence
- Inspection regime: pre-use, handover, 7-day, post-alteration, post-weather
- Competency: CISRS card level per operative
- Sign-off: competent reviewer, supervisor, scaffold inspector
Common Questions Before Getting Started
Will this take long?
Under 5 minutes. Select your trade, pick hazards, download.
Is it complicated?
No training needed. The guided builder walks you through every step.
Do I need experience?
If you know what work you're doing, you can use Riskora.
Is it free to try?
Yes. The Free plan needs no card — generate, review and download one free PDF. Upgrade any time for branding, sign-off and higher limits.
Create your RAMS in under 5 minutes
No onboarding or setup needed — start generating documents instantly
Try Riskora FreeNo card required · 1 lifetime safety document · Upgrade when you need more
All documents generated by Riskora should be reviewed by a competent person before use on site. Riskora provides structured templates — professional judgement is always required.
What your RAMS actually contains
Riskora builds a structured, client-facing document — not a generic AI paragraph. Every section is shaped around your job, your site and your team.
Hazards
Task-specific hazards for the job, captured row by row — not a generic list pulled from an old RAMS.
Controls
Control measures mapped to each hazard with residual risk scoring after controls are applied.
PPE
PPE requirements tied to the activity and site, ready to brief to the team.
Method steps
Step-by-step method statement structured around how the work is actually sequenced on site.
Emergency arrangements
First aid, rescue plan, emergency contacts and site-specific escalation routes.
COSHH prompts
Substance prompts when the work involves chemicals, dusts, fumes or sealants — flagged early, not missed at review.
Sign-off
Operative sign-off captured against the document — names, dates and acknowledgement of the brief.
Version history
Every change tracked so you can show what was issued, when, and which version the team signed.
Approval status
Clear approval state on every document — draft, in review, approved, issued — visible across the team.
Audit trail
Who created it, who reviewed it, who signed it. A complete trail you can hand to a principal contractor or auditor.
From copied-and-pasted to site-specific
The reason RAMS get rejected is rarely the format — it's that the document is obviously generic. Riskora rebuilds it around this job, this site and this task.
Generic template copied from an old job.
- • Hazards and controls that don't match this site or task.
- • Method steps written for a different sequence of work.
- • No emergency arrangements specific to the location.
- • Client flags it as generic and asks for a rewrite.
Site-specific document structured around this job, site and task.
- • Hazards captured from the actual scope you pasted in.
- • Method steps sequenced for how the work runs on site.
- • Emergency arrangements and rescue plan tied to the location.
- • Approved internally, briefed to the team, signed off and stored.
From job details to signed-off document
A four-step workflow used by contractors, consultants and safety teams to turn informal job details into client-ready safety paperwork.
- 1Paste job details
Drop in a client email, a WhatsApp from the site manager, a scope of works or a tender note. Anything that describes the job.
- 2Riskora structures the document
Riskora turns your brief into hazards, controls, method steps, PPE, emergency arrangements and COSHH prompts.
- 3Review, edit and download
You stay in control of every section. Tweak anything, then download a clean PDF or share a link.
- 4Brief the team and record sign-off
Brief operatives, capture their sign-off and keep a full audit trail of who signed which version.
Built by people who've written this paperwork on real sites
Riskora is built by a founder with hands-on site and document experience — designed for contractors, consultants and safety teams who need to issue, brief and prove safety paperwork without losing a day to admin.
- Built for contractors, consultants and teams
Solo trades, principal contractors and in-house safety teams all run on the same workflow. - Supports multiple countries
UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, US and Canada — wording and document types match the local standard. - Not just documents
Sign-off, approvals, version history and an audit trail — the management workflow around the paperwork.
Frequently Asked Questions
Describe your job — your draft is one paragraph away.
No training. No complex setup. Just select your trade and go.
References & Further Reading
Primary UK sources covering the legal and practical framework behind RAMS, risk assessments and method statements.
Create your scaffolding risk assessment free — preview before sign-up
Generate a preview first. Sign up only when you want to save, edit or export.
Final RAMS must be reviewed and approved by a competent person before use.
Riskora is an assistive document preparation tool. All documents generated must be reviewed, verified, and approved by a competent person before use on site. Riskora does not replace professional safety judgment, and no output should be treated as a legal compliance guarantee.