Does anybody have any views or opinions on the content of a risk assessment that sees basically, two different tasks included on the same assessment? The example I use is grit blasting inside a confined space with maybe 4 lines in the assessment covering this task, then the last line switches to spray painting inside the same space! For me, they are different tasks and require different work permits, one being non-naked flame with spark potential and the other cold work. Any thoughts?

Don't confuse the legal/administrative recording of a risk assessment findings with the legal requirement to actually risk assess. It's a process, not a document. My focus would be on the detail (or lack of) in the first instance and worry about how its recorded later. You may want separate documents to help meet your own standards and processes but I regard that as administrative. It might make things more complicated when trying to read about contractor plans etc. but you could technically write down every single control measure for every single task a company does on a single document and have it remain 'legal' - albeit very confusing and unhelpful. But still, a mere one line on spray painting in a confined space?

Good feedback so far and some of the comments are what I want to hear. I fully agree that it is a poor perception of risk by those carrying out the assessment and for me it is cutting corners to sneak a second task onto a risk assessment when the first task has completely different hazards to the second task. Under our standards, one is carried out on a hot work permit as it has spark potential and the second task is most definitely cold work yet they have the same risk assessment in each permit pack. I'm kinda glad I didn't put my name to this assessment!