"Annually" is the answer most people give, and it is the wrong shape of answer. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 do not set a review interval. Regulation 3(3) requires the assessment to be reviewed if there is reason to suspect it is no longer valid, or if there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates — and if the review shows changes are needed, to make them.
That is an event-driven duty, not a calendar one. A RAMS written six days ago can be invalid; one written six months ago can still be sound. In practice you need both: a set of triggers that force an immediate update, and a backstop interval that catches drift nobody noticed.
The triggers that force an update immediately
The scope of works changes
Any change to what is being done, where, or in what order. New tasks bring new hazards; a resequenced programme changes who is working above and below whom. This is the most common trigger and the most commonly ignored, because the change is agreed verbally on site and the document is never touched.
The method changes
Swapping a tower for a MEWP, a hand-dig for a machine dig, or a bolted connection for a welded one changes the hazards and the controls, and often the competencies and permits too. If the operatives are doing something the method statement does not describe, the document is invalid now.
Site conditions change
A new excavation next to your work area, scaffolding erected or struck, a change of access route, another trade starting overhead, a discovered service, weather that makes the planned lift unsafe. Anything that changes the environment the assessment assumed.
An incident or near miss
Any incident, near miss or dangerous occurrence involving the assessed work is direct evidence that the assessment or its controls did not hold. Review it before the work resumes, not at the end of the month. A near miss reviewed properly is the cheapest safety information you will ever get.
Personnel changes
A new supervisor, a new first aider, a change in the competence of the gang, or a card that has expired. The named individuals in the document must be the people actually on site — a RAMS naming a first aider who left is a live gap in the emergency arrangements, not an administrative slip.
The law or the guidance changes
New regulations, amended approved codes of practice, revised industry guidance such as TG20 for tube-and-fitting scaffolds, or a safety alert affecting a product or a piece of plant you use. These affect a whole class of your documents at once, which is why they are worth tracking centrally rather than per project.
Anything the principal contractor mandates
Many sites require re-submission at a fixed interval, on any revision to the construction phase plan, or after a specified period of inactivity. That is a contractual requirement layered on top of the legal one. What a principal contractor looks for covers how these reviews are actually conducted.
A workable cycle
- Before every new project, even where the work is nearly identical: re-derive the hazards from the new scope and replace every site-specific detail.
- On any of the triggers above: review immediately, revise, re-brief and re-issue before the affected work continues.
- Every three months on long-running projects: a scheduled check that the document still describes what is happening on site.
- Annually as a backstop for standing documents and template masters, to catch legislative and guidance changes.
- After any incident or enforcement contact affecting the work: review regardless of when the last review was.
The quarterly check on long projects is the one most often skipped and the one that catches the most. Twelve weeks into a job the sequence has almost always moved on from the version that was approved.
What a review actually involves
A review is not a signature on the front page with a new date. Read the scope against what is happening on site now. Walk the hazard register against the current conditions. Check that every named person is still the right person and every certificate is still in date. Check the emergency arrangements against the current site layout — muster points move as the site develops, and a muster point that is now inside a hoarding line is a serious problem.
If nothing has changed, record that you reviewed it and found no change needed, with the date and who did it. A review that leaves no trace is indistinguishable from a review that never happened.
Revision control and re-briefing
Every revision needs a new revision number, a dated entry in the revision history saying what changed and why, and withdrawal of the superseded version from site. Two versions in circulation is how people end up working to a method that was replaced a fortnight ago.
Then re-brief. A revised RAMS that nobody has been told about has changed nothing on the ground, and the briefing record is the evidence that it landed. Where the change is significant, a toolbox talk is the usual vehicle, with a signature sheet attached to the revision.
If the document is being re-reviewed after a change, resubmitting a document in Valify keeps the revision alongside the original and shows the previous finding counts against the new ones, so you can see whether the edit actually moved them.
How long to keep superseded versions
Keep them. If an incident is investigated, the question is what the document said at the time the work was done, which means you need the version that was current then, its briefing record and its revision history. Superseded RAMS have no value on site and considerable value in a file — remove them from circulation, but do not delete them.
This article is general guidance on UK construction documentation practice. It is not legal advice, a compliance certification or a substitute for review by your own qualified health and safety personnel, who remain responsible for deciding whether any particular document is adequate. See our disclaimer.