A working at height method statement is the document that turns the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (WAHR) hierarchy of control into a sequenced description of how a specific task will be carried out. It is required for any work where a person could fall a distance liable to cause injury — there is no minimum height threshold in UK law. The document has to do three things: justify why fall arrest sits where it does in the hierarchy, describe the work itself in sequence, and include a rescue plan that is not 'call 999'.
Regulation 4 of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 requires the employer to plan work at height, ensure it is supervised, and carried out in a manner that is — so far as is reasonably practicable — safe. Regulation 6 imposes the hierarchy of control: avoid working at height where possible, then prevent falls (collective measures first, then personal), then mitigate the consequences of a fall. A method statement is the standard way to evidence that the hierarchy has been applied to a specific task; without one, the contractor has no defence if the HSE asks how the WAHR duties were discharged on that job.
The document also feeds the CDM 2015 (SI 2015/51) construction phase plan — the principal contractor needs the method statement to satisfy regulation 12, and to brief operatives under regulation 13.
Reviewers reject method statements that jump straight to harness and lanyard. The document has to walk the hierarchy in order and explain why each higher tier was rejected for the specific task. For roof access, that means: can the work be done from inside the building (avoidance); can a MEWP, scaffold or tower be used (collective prevention); is a roof edge guardrail / fall arrest net feasible (collective mitigation); only then does PPE-based fall arrest become the chosen method, with a written justification.
This is the single section a competent reviewer reads first. If the chosen control sits at the bottom of the hierarchy with no justification for skipping the tiers above, the document is sent back regardless of how detailed the rest of it is.
Regulation 4(1)(c) of WAHR requires the rescue of a person from height to have been planned. A 'call 999' plan does not satisfy this — the HSE has been explicit that suspension trauma can become irreversible within 15–30 minutes, and ambulance attendance is rarely that fast. The plan has to name the rescue method, the equipment that will be on site (MEWP, mechanical descender, secondary line), the named first-aider who can deliver the rescue, and the maximum time from suspension to ground.
For MEWP work the plan typically names the ground-level secondary operator and the rescue route. For rope access the plan references IRATA ICOP and the L1/L2 supervisor on site.
Principal contractors generally read this document in a fixed order: hierarchy justification, edge protection / collective measures, PPE specification with anchor strength, rescue plan, weather and exclusion criteria. A weak rescue plan is the most common reason for rejection, followed by missing anchor strength (the document refers to 'a suitable anchor' rather than naming the standard — EN 795 Class A1/A2/B/C/D/E — and the kN rating).
The document should be live-updated when the work sequence changes; a method statement that hasn't been re-issued after a programme change is functionally void.
The numbered sections a reviewer expects to see, in order.
Address, structure, exact area of the height work, programme dates and shift pattern.
Numbered steps describing what happens, in order, from arrival to demobilisation.
Document the WAHR reg 6 hierarchy and justify why each higher tier was rejected for this task.
Guardrails, toe-boards, nets, MEWP — specification, install method and sign-off.
Harness model, lanyard energy absorber, anchor type (EN 795 class) and minimum kN rating.
Named method, named rescuer, equipment on site, maximum suspension-to-ground time.
Wind speed cut-off (commonly 23 mph / 38 kph for MEWPs), lightning, surface conditions.
PASMA / IPAF / IRATA / harness inspection training — names, certificate numbers and expiry dates.
Operatives sign to confirm the document has been briefed before work commences.
Why a method statement gets sent back — these are the patterns we see most often.
The legal framework this method statement operates inside. Links go to the official source.
SI 2005/735
The principal statutory instrument — the hierarchy of control and rescue planning duty live in regulations 4 and 6.
HSE INDG401
HSE's plain-English summary of the WAHR duties; commonly cited in tribunal cases.
SI 2015/51
Imposes the duty to plan, manage and monitor construction work — the route by which the method statement enters the construction phase plan.
HSE L143
Referenced where work at height interfaces with asbestos-containing materials (e.g. roof sheeting).
No. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 apply to any place where a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. The HSE has confirmed there is no minimum — a fall from a kerb edge into a trench, or from the back of a wagon, both fall in scope. The trigger is the fall risk, not the height in metres.
Yes. Regulation 4(1)(c) of WAHR requires that rescue is planned. The HSE position is that ambulance response times do not reliably meet the 15–30 minute window before suspension trauma becomes serious, so the plan must name an on-site rescue method, the equipment available, and the named person who will carry it out.
Yes — for any task other than the most routine, the risk assessment alone is insufficient. The method statement describes the work sequence; the risk assessment scores the residual risk of each step. Principal contractors will almost always ask for both for MEWP work above 6m or near power lines.
There is no licence requirement, but the author has to be 'competent' under WAHR reg 5 — meaning they have the skills, knowledge, training and experience to assess the risks of the specific task. For complex jobs (mast climbers, rope access, MEWPs near live cables) this is normally an IPAF / IRATA-certified supervisor or a chartered safety practitioner.
Whenever the work, the site, the equipment or the people change materially. In practice that means a re-issue per project, and a re-brief whenever the sequence changes on site. A method statement that hasn't been re-issued after a programme change is treated as void by most principal contractors.
Trade-specific RAMS guidance for the contractors who typically produce this method statement.
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.