• Static sites built in Astro or Next.js are flat-out fast—way quicker than WordPress sites groaning under plugins.
• Google prioritises mobile speed. Fast pages boost your rankings and visitor retention.
• Drag-and-drop builders (Wix, Squarespace, etc.) add unwanted extra code.
• WordPress plugins demand constant updates. Static sites avoid this hassle completely.

You’ll hear people talk about “static” or “dynamic” websites like it’s something everyone should just know. But honestly? Most business owners don’t care about the basics. They just want their website to work.

A static site is the kind I build. It’s made up of proper code—HTML, CSS, a bit of JavaScript—and it’s already there. Nothing fancy behind the curtain. When someone visits your site, it just loads. Fast. Like grabbing a sandwich that’s already made.

Now, a dynamic site, like WordPress or Wix, builds the page every time someone asks for it. It runs bits of code, pulls stuff out of a database, glues it all together, and then shows it. Slower. More that can break. More things shouting at each other in the background, and usually becomes a massive pain to update.

• Static sites: HTML, CSS, JavaScript—ready and quick. Like grabbing a sandwich already made.
• Dynamic sites (WordPress/Wix): build the page every visit. They are slower, more complex, and prone to breaking.

Thing is, most small businesses don’t need a site that changes every day. They just want something reliable. But WordPress makes you pay the performance cost every single visit, just so you could write a blog post if you fancied it. Or, you could implement massive new cool plugins that end up wanting more money per month than you realised. Then you find out you don’t really need the thing… but now you’re tied into a yearly contract. Oops.

Some people say, “Isn’t WordPress the standard though?” Maybe. Doesn’t mean it’s the right choice for you. Just because the standard was for everyone to go to University, doesn’t mean it was for everyone.

Static sites don’t have a database to throw a fit. No logins to get hacked. No surprise errors when some plugin decides it’s had enough. They just sit there, ready to load. Like a Henry Hoover that always works: reliable, efficient, easy.

And if you want to edit stuff yourself? I’ll set up a dashboard (or literally just message me, and I’ll have it done for you in seconds). Change a bit of text, update your hours, add a photo—job done. You don’t need to touch code.

Unless you have a very specific reason to go dynamic, static’s quicker, easier, and simpler. Keep it simple.

Speed isn’t a luxury; it’s the difference between someone sticking around or closing the tab. Google reckons if your page doesn’t load in under three seconds, half your visitors disappear. People are impatient, and fair enough, really.

Static sites are fast because they’re already built. No work to do when someone visits. The server just hands over the files, like handing someone a printed leaflet. No database, no processing, nothing extra going on. Just: here you go, job done.

These sites live on Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). Sounds fancy, but all it means is the files are stored all over the world. So, if someone in Croydon visits, they’re not waiting for the data to crawl in from across the Atlantic. It’s like borrowing sugar from a neighbour instead of ordering it from Amazon US.

• Static sites are fast because they’re already built. No work to do when someone visits. The server just hands over the files, like handing someone a printed leaflet. No database, no processing, nothing extra. Just: here you go, job done.
• Dynamic sites (WordPress/Wix) load fonts, scripts, plugins, tracking stuff—the lot.

I had a client whose homepage was over 2MB before you saw anything. If you’re trying to load that at Croydon Train Station (if you know, you know), then that website is just not loading at all. I rebuilt it static, with images and all. It came in under 150KB. A world of difference—not just realistically for a person visiting, but also for Google to rate higher.

And it’s consistent. Static sites don’t fall over when three people visit at once. I’ve seen WordPress sites buckle under a bit of traffic, all because the server couldn’t keep up. Static doesn’t care if it’s one visitor or a thousand. It just hands over the same page like it’s nothing.

More than that, it also ends up being cheaper. Now, fair enough, you might be thinking £175 a month is a long commitment. But I’m chucking in hosting, SEO updates, content management, support, maintenance, and observing how it’s ranking in Google. If you were to use WordPress for this, you’d need a plugin for each, and each plugin might come in at like £19.99 (and, to be honest, it’s usually more like £30-40 a month). Just based on what I said above, you’d be looking at 6 x £19.99 (around £20 each) = £120 per month in random plugins that you need to remember. Plus, then there are WordPress costs and hosting. You’re already going to be looking at a bare minimum of like £200 a month in just hidden costs.

Quicker sites don’t just feel better; they do better. They rank higher on Google, people spend longer on them, and they’re more likely to click your phone number or fill out a form. I’ve seen bounce rates drop in a day just from swapping to static.

If you’re after results and don’t fancy paying to patch problems every month, go static. It just works.

Most people visiting your site are on their phones. It’s not a guess; it just is. Simple as that.

The problem is, most WordPress templates are built for desktops, and mobile is bolted on later. You get overlapping text, buttons that don’t work properly, and menus that need pinching and zooming. It’s a mess.

I’ve seen sites where the “Call now” button disappears behind a pop-up. Or the booking form takes up half the screen but doesn’t scroll right. These are the bits where people were trying to give you money, and the site gets in the way.

I build mobile-first. That means starting with the basics for small screens and making sure the essentials are easy to tap, quick to load, and don’t move about like jelly. Then, I layer on extras for bigger screens, like wider layouts or high-res images.

Using Tailwind CSS helps keep it tidy. I also use lazy loading, responsive image tags, and a bunch of other stuff. This means your phone doesn’t have to download desktop-sized pictures over mobile data. It saves time, saves bandwidth, and just feels smoother.

Most people won’t notice when your site works well on mobile. They’ll just use it and move on. But when it doesn’t work? You feel it. Fewer enquiries, more people bouncing away, and no idea why.

If your competition has a better mobile site, they’re getting the clicks. Not you. And that’s not a tech problem; that becomes a money problem.

Mobile-first isn’t a trend. It’s just how you build websites now if you want them to do the job.

Most people only think about website security after something breaks. And fair enough. But by then, it’s a bit late. The thing is, most hacks aren’t targeted; they’re just bots scanning for easy wins. And WordPress is usually full of easy wins. (As an example, the first website I built for myself—a portfolio site to host my CV—ended up getting scraped by about 1,000 bots every day trying to access /wp-admin links. Evidently, they were trying to hack something. The thing is, I wasn’t even using WordPress, but that just shows how often WordPress websites get targeted).

Loads of plugins, outdated themes, weak logins—all of it makes a nice, big target. One dodgy plugin, and suddenly your site’s redirecting people to gambling sites or worse. I’ve seen it happen.

With a static site, there’s nothing to hack. No login panel, no database, no admin dashboard. It’s just files. If someone wanted to break in, they’d need access to the hosting itself, which is a lot harder than breaking a plugin. (It also means Amazon or some other big-dog that screwed something up—and suddenly, that’s a much bigger issue than some unknown personal site).

Also—and this is boring but important—GDPR is easier too. Static sites don’t store customer data directly. Forms can still work, but the actual site isn’t sitting on a pile of personal info. That saves you hassle and makes the whole thing a bit less stressful.

If you’ve ever dealt with a hacked site, you’ll know the panic. If you haven’t, count yourself lucky. I’d rather just avoid the risk.

Static isn’t bulletproof, but it’s much, much harder to break. And for most small businesses, that’s more than enough.

Wix, Squarespace, and WordPress builders are fine if you just want something up quickly. But if you actually care about how your site runs, and want to own it for real, a hand-built static site beats them every time.

Site builders also hide all sorts of stuff behind paywalls: SEO options, accessibility tweaks, even basic control over what Google sees. That’s why a lot of those sites never rank, even with all the boxes ticked. I’ve rebuilt loads of Wix sites for businesses who couldn’t work out why nobody was finding them. Spoiler: it’s not their fault; it’s the platform.

With static, you get full control. The code’s clean, images are optimised, and scripts are only there if you actually need them. Want something to look a certain way, or do a specific thing? I can just build it—no upsells or weird restrictions.

Want to move hosts? Easy. With a hand-built static site, you own the files. Move them wherever, back up as you like—nothing gets held hostage.

If you want to update content, you can use a headless CMS like Sanity or NetlifyCMS. You get an easy editor, but the real site is still fast, simple, and bulletproof for visitors.

Static sites don’t buckle under a spike of visitors either. I’ve seen local shops crash when they get a mention in the local paper; the WordPress site falls over, and customers can’t get in. Static just keeps going, no matter how many show up.

If you want a demo site that looks good for five minutes but drags its heels in real life, pick a builder. If you want something built for your business, that you control and can trust, go static. You won’t look back.

Of course, you can. There’s enough “build a site in five minutes” ads out there to make anyone think it’s easy (I’m looking at you, advert that’s been on TV recently…). But ask yourself: is that the best use of your time, or are you setting yourself up for a right palaver?

And also… will it actually look as good as they pretend to show in the advert? Realistically, it’ll end up about the same difference as a Big Mac on the McDonald’s adverts compared to when you actually get one (or worse—Deliveroo’d to you cold, soggy, and stale).

You’ll spend a weekend wrestling with some page builder, feel dead proud, then a week later the contact form doesn’t work, or the layout’s shot on mobile. Try adding a new service, and suddenly the menu’s all over the place. Update a plugin and—boom—the home page is just an error. You Google around, end up in forums, and next thing you know, it’s 2 a.m., you’re ten quid deep in White Monster, and still stuck. Oh, and by that time, your free trial probably also ran out, and you’re looking at that £49.99/month subscription, thinking, why did I ever start this?

Behind the scenes, it gets worse: DNS settings, SSL, spam, making sure it doesn’t look a mess on mobile. I’ve seen people waste more hours fighting with this stuff than they ever billed for actual work. Not a good trade-off. (And also, it usually ends up costing more for me to try to shoehorn fixes for them. A total rebuild is always easier!)

And the “free” template? That could cost you plenty. One hack, or a form that quietly stops working, and you’ll never know how many jobs you lost. First impressions matter, and a dodgy site is worse than none at all.

When you hire someone like me, you get more than code. You get someone who’s seen all the pitfalls, knows where things go wrong, and fixes problems before they become nightmares. When you need a tweak, you just ask. No call centres or ticket queues (yikes, this sounded sales-y, but it was the only way to put it).

The web moves quick. There are new gadgets, new risks, new ways for stuff to break. DIY means you have to keep up. Hire me, and I’ll handle all the boring bits—including updates, backups, 8 p.m. calls to add a new page to your website because you’re mega-excited about that new service you offer, whatever—so you can focus on your business.

I’ve spent years with React, Next.js, Java, Spring Boot, AWS, Tailwind—all the important tools. My monthly fee (£175 for most, £275 for fancy jobs) covers the lot: site, support, fixes, advice. You’re paying to buy back your evenings, your weekends, and your sanity.

So yeah, you could do it yourself. But is it worth the hassle? Your customers want a site that works, loads quick, and lets them get in touch. Wouldn’t you rather spend your time growing your business, or, you know, actually having a life?

Let me take care of the site; you take care of the rest. No drama, no faff, just a website that works.

In my experience, business owners tend to see websites as just another cost. Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, recognise websites as investments—spending money now to bring in more later. Let’s say you pay £3,000 for a professionally built static website. That might seem steep initially. But, if a cleaner, faster site convinces even a handful of visitors to become customers (instead of leaving because your site was slow or looked dodgy), you might easily make £10,000 extra in a year. Suddenly, that £3,000 isn’t a cost; it’s a smart investment. These aren’t random numbers either; I’ve genuinely seen clients double their revenue after upgrading their websites.

Here’s how my approach works: I offer fully managed websites at £175 per month. Some people might question why they’d pay monthly forever. But think about it—does my site help you earn more than £175 extra each month? Usually, yes. For example, if you’re a painter and each new client is worth £800+, just one additional client per month covers your site costs and leaves plenty extra. Plus, each new customer you gain just adds ongoing value. For that £175 per month, you get ongoing support, SEO updates, changes whenever Google’s algorithm shifts, and someone always available to tweak or fix anything at a moment’s notice. You’re not just paying for a website; you’re paying for someone who’s genuinely invested in helping your business succeed.

With all these “fast and cheap” options out there, just remember: a truly great website never comes cheap. Honestly, low prices should be a red flag. If I needed surgery, I wouldn’t trust the guy offering it online for £350 when everyone else charges £4,000. Cheap pricing screams shortcuts, lack of quality, and rushed work. Your business deserves better. If you choose cheap, expect cheap results. If you want it done right, invest in a proper developer.

Static sites aren’t a magic bullet. If you need user accounts, real-time chats, or a massive product catalogue, then a dynamic website makes sense. The smart move is picking what fits, not just copying what everyone else does.

Most Surrey businesses just need a simple site that looks good, loads fast, and makes people want to get in touch. If that’s you, then a static site is the best choice.

So here’s the offer: I design, build, host, maintain, and support your site for £175/month. Complex builds can go up to £275/month. Zero upfront. No pushy sales calls, no nonsense, just clear support and results you can measure (and a shiny site that actually looks good; I’ve seen the work of some supposed agencies and, let’s just say… it ain’t it.)

If you’re interested and that sounds like it could be for you, just get in touch and drop me a message.