Site-specific safety plan (SSSP) template for New Zealand
An SSSP should explain how the people on a particular New Zealand site will manage the work's real health and safety risks. It should identify the PCBUs and their interfaces, the work and site hazards, who controls each measure, worker induction and competence, emergencies, incidents and the process for reviewing changes. The blank framework below helps a main contractor or subcontractor prepare that plan. It must be completed and tested against the actual site; changing only the address on a previous plan is not enough.
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), as explained by WorkSafe New Zealand, PCBUs must manage risks by eliminating them so far as reasonably practicable, or minimising them where elimination is not reasonably practicable. They must work with other businesses where duties overlap and involve workers in identifying and managing risks. An SSSP is a commonly used planning format, including in Site Safe's construction packs; do not confuse the format with a blanket rule that every business must use a document with this exact title.
This is a New Zealand construction page. UK RAMS, Irish Safety Statements and Australian SWMS legal rules should not be copied into it. Some NZ contractors also use a task analysis, job safety analysis or safe work method statement for a particular higher-risk job. Those are task-level documents linked to the wider site plan, not replacements for the site-wide coordination and emergency arrangements.
Choose the right SSSP relationship
Before filling the form, establish who controls the site and under which health and safety system each contractor is working. Site Safe's SSSP guide describes different packs for a main contractor and for subcontractors working under or alongside the main contractor's system. This framework does not require a colour-coded pack, but it does require a clear answer to the same practical question: who is doing which safety task?
Where multiple PCBUs share risks, WorkSafe's contracting guidance says they must consult, cooperate and coordinate, so far as reasonably practicable. Do not write “head contractor responsible for everything” or “subcontractor solely responsible for its work” when the site has overlapping access, lifting, traffic, electrical or public-interface risks. Allocate actions and record how changes will be communicated.
Copyable SSSP framework
1. Project and agreement
| Field | Complete for the site |
|---|---|
| Project, address, site boundaries and work stages | |
| Client/property controller and main contractor PCBU | |
| Subcontractor PCBU(s), scopes and contacts | |
| Site lead, after-hours contact and worker representatives | |
| Work start/end dates, working hours and occupied areas | |
| Applicable contract/site rules and plans | |
| Related task analyses, permits, design or specialist plans | |
| SSSP owner, issue/version and approval | |
| How overlapping duties and disputes are resolved |
Attach a site sketch or plan where it clarifies entries, exits, pedestrian and vehicle routes, exclusion zones, services, first-aid point and assembly area. Keep the version available to the people who work from it.
2. Site hazards and control register
| Location/activity and risk | Workers or others exposed | Current control and evidence | Further action, PCBU/owner and due date | Stop or review trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access, traffic and deliveries | ||||
| Falls, openings and falling objects | ||||
| Ground, excavations and underground services | ||||
| Plant, lifting and temporary works | ||||
| Electricity, isolation and overhead services | ||||
| Hazardous substances, dust, noise or other health exposures | ||||
| Fire, hot work and emergency routes | ||||
| Public, neighbours, occupants and other trades | ||||
| Site-specific risks not listed here |
Replace the example rows with the real work. Distinguish a control already in place from an action still open. A high-risk activity should not begin merely because its action appears in the plan. If a task needs a more detailed task analysis or specialist procedure, cross-reference it and identify who releases the work after checking the controls.
3. People, competence and induction
| Question | Site-specific answer and record |
|---|---|
| Who is on site, employed by which PCBU and doing what work? | |
| What licences, qualifications or task training are required? | |
| Which workers need supervision or language support? | |
| How is site induction delivered and recorded? | |
| Who briefs changed hazards and updated task analyses? | |
| How can workers report a risk, suggest a control or stop unsafe work? | |
| How are visitors and deliveries managed? |
A Site Safe course or passport may be a client or site requirement, but a card by itself does not prove competence for the particular task. Verify the job-specific training, supervision and authorisation that the activity needs. Consult workers when selecting controls; WorkSafe says they often identify practical risks missed by office-only planning.
4. Site operations and coordination
| Arrangement | Who controls it and how it works |
|---|---|
| Daily pre-start and work-area release | |
| Traffic routes, parking, deliveries and pedestrian separation | |
| Permits, isolation and simultaneous high-risk work | |
| Plant, tools, inspection and maintenance | |
| Hazardous products and substance information | |
| Subcontractor onboarding, documents and supervision | |
| Toolbox talks and worker consultation | |
| Site inspections, defects and close-out | |
| Waste, housekeeping and end-of-shift security |
Set a practical communication method for conflicting work: for example, a lifting zone may cross another trade's access route, or a planned power isolation may affect a neighbouring tenant. The relevant PCBUs should agree the sequence and who enforces each control before the activities overlap.
5. Emergency and incident response
| Emergency item | Record for this site |
|---|---|
| Credible scenarios: fire, injury, fall, hazardous release, flood or other | |
| Alarm method and communication backup | |
| Emergency services access and precise address/location | |
| Evacuation route and assembly point | |
| First-aid people, kit and nearest suitable care | |
| Specialist rescue plans and equipment references | |
| Who coordinates response across PCBUs | |
| How incidents and notifiable events are reported/escalated | |
| How the site is preserved and restarted after an event |
For rescue after a fall, confined-space event or similar, a generic “call 111” statement may be insufficient. Identify the specialist response and the people/equipment that will be available during the work. Use the correct current WorkSafe notification process for an event that is legally notifiable; do not attempt to decide notifiability from this blank form alone.
6. Task analysis and high-risk work register
| Task | Task analysis / specialist plan reference | Lead PCBU and supervisor | Critical pre-start hold point | Review trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Site Safe's SSSP pack includes a separate Task Analysis and emergency response form. That division is useful: the SSSP owns the site system, and task analyses detail the specific job steps and controls. The next proposed Complys NZ task-analysis template has that narrower purpose; verify its route before linking it in a live page.
7. Review, briefing and approval
| Event | Date, change, responsible person and people informed |
|---|---|
| Initial PCBU agreement and worker briefing | |
| New contractor, worker or work stage | |
| Changed ground, structure, plant, traffic or public interface | |
| Incident, near miss or failed control | |
| Emergency drill or rescue-plan test | |
| Site inspection/action close-out | |
| Approved revised SSSP issue |
Review when a change makes the current plan unreliable. WorkSafe's risk guidance says paperwork supports good processes but does not replace controls. The key question is whether workers and other PCBUs are following a plan that still reflects the site.
Example: two trades in an operating commercial building
A main contractor is replacing rooftop plant while a specialist electrical subcontractor prepares connections. A building tenant remains open below. The site SSSP records the tenant interface, delivery and crane routes, rooftop access, evacuation arrangements, worker induction and the communication chain. The lifting operation has its own competent plan; the electrical contractor's task analysis covers isolation, testing and release. The two PCBUs agree when the roof exclusion is active, who tells the tenant, who checks that electrical work cannot start before the lift is complete, and how a changed weather forecast stops the lift. A revised plan is briefed when the crane setup location changes.
The example shows coordination, not the actual engineering design, isolation procedure or rescue method. Those must be supplied and checked by competent people for the job.
Common mistakes
- A generic pack with only the site address changed. Use real routes, trades, interfaces and emergency access.
- Confusing SSSP with a task analysis. Keep the site system and job-specific method connected but distinct.
- Assuming one PCBU's signature transfers every duty. Identify overlapping duties and coordinate controls.
- Listing licences without checking the work. Confirm the right competency and supervision for the task.
- Writing “PPE” as the principal control. First consider eliminating risk and collective or engineered protection.
- No version control after change. Reassess, issue, brief and check the new arrangement.
- Treating a plan as a statutory safe-work certificate. The plan is only useful when controls are implemented.
Complys and next step
The observed New Zealand Complys site is getcomplys.com/nz, and its tools index lists an SSSP explanatory guide. That guide has a different intent from this copyable form. The proposed /nz/sssp-software money route and exact SSSP implementation were not independently verified. Existing marketing copy makes broader NZ SSSP claims, but this draft does not promote them as implementation-proven. Claude should confirm the host, route and actual product before inserting a stronger CTA or feature claim.
Next step: walk the site with the participating PCBUs, fill the hazard, coordination and emergency sections, link task analyses and confirm that all pre-start controls are in place before work is released.
Source, claim and writer-side QA register — checked 5 October 2026
| Material claim | Primary source | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| NZ risk management: eliminate where reasonably practicable, otherwise minimise; involve workers and review | WorkSafe how to manage work risks | Do not substitute paperwork for controls. |
| PCBUs with overlapping duties must consult, cooperate and coordinate | WorkSafe contracting guidance | Allocate actual shared tasks. |
| Site Safe publishes SSSP packs with hazard, training, emergency, incident and task-analysis records | Site Safe SSSP guide | Site Safe is the source for its format; this form is independent and not endorsed by it. |
| Site Safe's SSSP packs differ by main-contractor/subcontractor relationship | Site Safe SSSP guide | Do not imply colour-coded packs are statutory forms. |
Cannibalisation: existing NZ Complys tools index has an SSSP guide, while this is a fillable site plan; no exact live form observed. Confirm current repo, unpublished owners and route on getcomplys.com, not an assumed .co.uk host. Product truth: proposed /nz/sssp-software and feature implementation unverified; no automatic legal-compliance claim. Jurisdiction: NZ HSWA/WorkSafe/PCBU, not UK or Irish terminology. Links/CTA: verified NZ homepage and tools index only; proposed money page gated. Writer-side QA: usable multi-PCBU form, hazards, emergency, task-analysis relationship, example, sources and route/product gates. Independent whole-page and repo QA remain outstanding.