Clear BS5837 planning advice that explains how a proposed development interacts with existing trees and what mitigation may be appropriate.
Send us a few details and our arboricultural consultants will review your project and help identify whether you need an AIA, updated tree information, protection measures or another planning-stage document.
Enter your email address to get started. We’ll guide you through the rest.
An Arbor Cultural consultant will review what you sent and prepare the appropriate quote using the email address provided.
Quick to completeAbout 60 seconds
No obligationReview before you instruct
Consultant reviewedArboricultural expertise
An AIA examines the relationship between a specific development proposal and the trees that may be affected by it. It is the point where tree-survey information is tested against the actual design.
A tree survey records the existing trees. An AIA asks a different question: what changes when this particular building, extension, access road, driveway, service route, level change or other development is placed on the site?
The assessment considers direct and indirect effects — including removal, RPA encroachment, crown relationships, construction access, future pressure, levels, demolition, services and other design interactions relevant to the project.
Where an impact is identified, the AIA should explain its significance and the design response or mitigation. The purpose is not to claim that every impact is harmless; it is to give the planning authority a reasoned arboricultural assessment.
An AIA is not simply another name for a BS5837 tree survey. The survey provides the tree data. The AIA analyses the proposed development against that data and explains the arboricultural consequences.
Not every site needs an identical report package. The need for an AIA usually becomes clear from the presence of relevant trees, the proposed design and the local planning authority's validation or assessment requirements.
A validation request, planning officer, tree officer or pre-application response may specifically ask for an Arboricultural Impact Assessment. In that case, send the wording exactly as received together with the proposed layout.
Even without explicit council wording, an AIA may be appropriate where buildings, access, parking, services or construction operations interact with trees on or near the site.
Once the proposed design is sufficiently developed, the existing survey information can be used to test the design and identify whether further arboricultural changes or mitigation are needed before submission.
A revised layout, new drainage route, changed access or altered building footprint can create impacts that were not assessed in an earlier arboricultural document. The AIA should correspond with the design actually being submitted.
Do not order a report based only on the name you think the council wants. Send the site, latest proposed layout and any council wording. Arbor Cultural can identify whether the immediate need is a survey, constraints plan, AIA, protection plan or another planning-stage document.
The AIA is strongest when the design team has reliable tree information before fixing the layout. That allows the project to respond to the most important constraints rather than asking the report to justify avoidable conflicts afterwards.
The exact package varies by project, but the sequence below explains the normal relationship between the main arboricultural planning documents.
Records relevant tree dimensions, condition, category and other survey information.
Communicates important spatial constraints such as crown spread and Root Protection Areas to the design team.
Tests the proposed design against the tree information and explains the resulting impacts and mitigation.
Shows practical protection and controlled working areas for retained trees where required.
Sets out detailed construction methods and sequencing where sensitive work around retained trees requires explanation.
Construction-stage attendance and records for specified sensitive operations where monitoring is required.
An effective AIA is not a generic list of tree facts. It focuses on the impacts created by the actual proposal, distinguishing significant constraints from issues that can be resolved through design, protection or construction methodology.
Which trees are proposed for retention or removal, why, and how that relates to their assessed quality, condition, position and the development proposal.
How proposed buildings, surfaces, excavation, access and other development components relate to the RPAs associated with retained trees.
Whether the proposed development creates adequate spatial relationships with existing crowns and whether pruning is proposed or reasonably foreseeable.
Whether retained trees have realistic long-term space to grow without creating predictable pressure for excessive pruning or removal.
Whether tree position, crown size and orientation may materially affect the usability or amenity of proposed buildings and outdoor spaces.
Whether demolition and construction access can occur without unacceptable conflict with retained trees and their protection areas.
Cut, fill, retaining structures and landscape changes can affect rooting conditions even when a building footprint appears clear of the stem.
Service routes, soakaways, chambers and trenches can create arboricultural impacts that are easily missed if only the architectural footprint is reviewed.
Removal of buildings, walls, slabs or hard surfacing can be relevant where machinery or excavation is close to retained trees.
Trees outside the application boundary can still influence the design where crowns or rooting areas extend towards the site.
The AIA can explain how protected or conservation-area trees are affected, while keeping planning assessment separate from any additional tree-work consent process.
Where impacts are identified, the report can explain modifications, protection, replacement planting or later construction-stage measures that address them.
BS5837 categorisation helps communicate the quality and value of surveyed trees in the context of development. The category informs design and impact assessment, but it should not be treated as a one-letter instruction to retain or remove a tree.
Category A trees are generally of high quality and capable of making a substantial contribution. A design that creates major avoidable conflict with such trees may require particularly strong justification or redesign.
Category B trees can still be important planning constraints. Their retention value must be considered in relation to the proposal, wider landscape context and the nature of any impact.
Category C does not mean “free to remove”. These trees may still contribute to site character, screening, group value or planning objectives, and the impact of removal still needs to be considered.
Category U typically identifies trees that cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for the longer term. The survey report should explain the relevant reasons rather than rely on the letter alone.
AIA quality comes from interpreting the tree population as a whole: individual quality, groups, visual contribution, site function, future relationship and the scale of the proposed development all matter.
Some arboricultural impacts are obvious on a drawing; others only become apparent when the completed development or construction process is considered. A strong AIA deals with both.
These arise because the development physically interacts with a tree or its growing environment.
These arise from the way the completed development and trees are likely to interact over time.
BS5837 uses stem-diameter information to calculate an indicative Root Protection Area for retained trees. The purpose is to identify a minimum soil area that should be considered through design and construction planning.
It should not be interpreted as proof that roots stop at the boundary, nor as an automatic statement that every form of development inside the area is impossible. Site conditions and the proposed method matter.
Existing foundations, roads, retaining structures, changes in ground condition and other site features can influence rooting patterns. Where an RPA shape is adjusted, the arboricultural reasoning and retained area should be clearly explained rather than altered simply to make a design fit.
Crown spread shows the present canopy relationship with the site, but design assessment should also consider species characteristics, likely growth and the clearance needed for realistic long-term coexistence.
A building positioned very close to a retained tree may create future management pressure even if construction can technically be achieved. The AIA should consider whether occupants are likely to experience predictable conflicts with light, branches, leaf fall or physical proximity.
Shade analysis is not a universal pass/fail formula. Orientation, crown density, room use, garden layout, glazing and the importance of the tree all affect how the relationship should be interpreted.
Roots beneath or adjacent to existing drives, patios and structures may still be important. Removal or replacement of those surfaces can create impacts that differ from simply building on previously undisturbed soil.
BSI currently lists BS 5837:2012, “Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations”, as the current published standard and marks it as under review.
| Document | Main question | Typical timing | What it contains | What it does not replace |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BS5837 Tree SurveyWhat trees are present? | Records relevant dimensions, condition and category. | Early design / planning | Tree schedule and survey information. | It does not assess a specific proposed layout by itself. |
| Tree Constraints PlanWhere are the important spatial constraints? | Helps the designer see crowns, RPAs and other relevant constraints. | Pre-design / concept design | Tree constraints shown spatially. | It does not explain the impacts of a final proposal. |
| Arboricultural Impact AssessmentHow does this proposal affect the trees? | Assesses tree retention/removal and development interactions. | Design development / planning submission | Impact analysis and mitigation strategy. | It does not necessarily provide detailed construction methodology. |
| Tree Protection PlanWhere will retained trees be protected? | Communicates spatial protection measures. | Application or condition stage | Fencing, protection and controlled working areas. | It does not explain every sensitive construction operation. |
| Arboricultural Method StatementHow will sensitive work be carried out? | Sets out construction-stage methodology and sequencing. | Application / condition / technical stage | Detailed methods, controls, supervision and hold points where relevant. | It does not replace the earlier assessment of design impacts. |
Use the tree survey and constraints plan to identify the important trees and spatial constraints while there is still room to move buildings, access, parking, gardens and services.
Review emerging layouts before planning submission. This is often the most useful time for arboricultural input because design conflicts can still be resolved rather than merely explained.
Prepare the AIA against the actual submitted layout, using the relevant tree data and drawings. The report should make the retention, removal, impacts and mitigation understandable to the planning authority.
If the scheme changes, the arboricultural effects may need reassessment. After permission, detailed protection, method statements or supervision may be required through planning conditions.
A detailed report cannot compensate for incorrect or obsolete base information. The quality of the assessment depends on knowing which trees are relevant and analysing the correct revision of the development.
Relevant trees need to be identified consistently between the tree schedule, plans and proposed layout. Material changes in tree condition or removals since an old survey may require review.
Accurate tree positions, boundaries, buildings and level information can be important where the AIA depends on close spatial relationships. The arboricultural consultant should not silently “correct” a poor base plan by guesswork.
The report should state the drawing or revision assessed. If the architect changes the footprint or access after the AIA is completed, the impacts may also change.
Where available, proposed drainage, levels, foundations and services can reveal tree impacts that are invisible on an architectural site plan.
Validation requirements, pre-application comments and officer emails help define the scope and prevent the report from answering the wrong question.
Existing tree surveys, constraints plans, earlier AIAs, TPO information or relevant condition documents can reduce duplication if they remain suitable for the current project.
The AIA is ultimately planning evidence. A technically detailed report still needs to communicate the core arboricultural consequences of the proposal clearly.
The drawings and report should be consistent, with tree numbers and proposed removals clear enough to review without interpretation.
The assessment should identify meaningful RPA, crown, access, level, service, demolition or future-use conflicts instead of burying them in generic text.
Not every overlap has the same significance. The report should explain why an impact is acceptable, unacceptable or requires mitigation.
Where the design has been adjusted or protection is proposed, the relationship between the identified impact and the response should be easy to follow.
Planning is not only about getting through construction. The completed relationship between retained trees, buildings, gardens, access and occupants also matters.
If a TPP, AMS or supervision schedule is intended to follow through condition discharge, the planning-stage strategy should make that pathway clear without pretending the later detail already exists.
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment can support a planning application, but it cannot guarantee planning permission. The Local Planning Authority considers the application as a whole and makes the decision.
A Tree Preservation Order can protect individual trees, groups or woodland. Government guidance states that cutting down, topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damage and wilful destruction are prohibited without written consent unless an exception applies; root cutting is also treated as a prohibited activity.
Where a full planning permission includes tree work necessary to implement the approved development, the legal position can differ from separate or additional tree work. The AIA should accurately distinguish the planning proposal from unrelated tree management.
Trees in conservation areas can be subject to statutory controls even where there is no TPO. Government guidance describes the section 211 notification process for certain works to unprotected conservation-area trees, subject to exemptions.
An AIA can assess the development impact on those trees, but it should not imply that a planning report itself authorises any additional work outside the approved development.
Ownership does not determine whether a tree is relevant to the AIA. A tree on neighbouring land, the highway or another ownership can still be a planning constraint where its crown or rooting environment relates to the development site.
A mature tree just beyond a boundary may have crown and rooting influence extending into the application site. The design should not ignore it simply because the applicant does not own it.
Street trees can affect new accesses, visibility, service connections and construction logistics. Highway ownership does not remove the need to consider their arboricultural relationship with the proposal.
The edge of a tree group or woodland can create landscape, rooting and future-growth constraints that are not well represented by analysing only the nearest individual stem.
The AIA can identify tree constraints relevant to the foundation strategy and explain where excavation would create arboricultural impacts. Foundation design and calculations remain the responsibility of the appropriate engineer.
A building footprint may avoid an RPA while the proposed drainage layout does not. Early coordination can prevent the arboricultural report and drainage design from contradicting one another at submission.
Electric, water, telecoms and other utility routes can create excavation conflicts. The AIA should flag significant constraints so later service design is not forced through the most sensitive rooting areas.
Excavation can remove roots while fill can alter aeration, drainage and soil conditions. Proposed level changes should therefore be considered where they interact with retained trees.
A planning layout may look acceptable while leaving no practical route for machinery, scaffolding, deliveries or demolition activity. The AIA should consider foreseeable construction implications where they are material to tree retention.
Replacement planting and landscape proposals can mitigate some tree losses, but new planting should not be used as a generic substitute for understanding the value and impact of removing established trees.
Strong arboricultural planning advice is not about finding complicated construction methods for every conflict. Sometimes the best mitigation is a small design change made before submission.
Move or reshape development elements where a reasonable design change can remove a significant tree conflict altogether.
Adjust footprints, access, levels, service routes or hard surfacing so that the scale of encroachment or tree work is proportionate.
Use appropriate Tree Protection Plan and later method-statement information to control construction activity around retained trees.
Replacement planting and landscape enhancement can form part of the response where tree removal is justified within the planning balance.
The right answer is project-specific. A minor encroachment near a low-quality tree is not the same planning issue as substantial conflict with a high-quality mature tree, and the AIA should make those distinctions rather than applying one rule to every site.
Late arboricultural input can turn solvable design conflicts into planning arguments because there is no remaining flexibility to move the proposal.
If the AIA refers to a different revision from the submitted planning drawings, the assessment may no longer describe the actual proposal.
Neighbouring and highway trees can be material constraints where their crowns or rooting areas extend towards the development.
Lower category does not remove the need to assess landscape contribution, group context and the cumulative effect of tree loss.
The architectural footprint can avoid tree constraints while later engineering information creates substantial rooting conflict.
Impact depends on extent, location, existing conditions, tree quality and the proposed construction method — not simply whether two lines overlap.
“Protect trees in accordance with BS5837” does not explain how a specific design conflict has been avoided, reduced or managed.
An AIA is technical evidence within a wider planning decision. Good reporting should strengthen the application without pretending the arboricultural consultant controls the council's decision.
These examples show how the assessment changes with the project. They are not templates and do not assume that any particular impact is acceptable on a different site.
The AIA may need to focus on foundation excavation, crown clearance, future branch relationship and whether the completed room creates long-term pressure on the tree.
A replacement dwelling may involve demolition impacts as well as a new footprint, altered drive, services and garden relationship.
Infill schemes often have tight spatial relationships and limited flexibility for access, parking, gardens and drainage.
For larger sites, the AIA may need to communicate landscape-scale tree loss, retained groups, access and phasing alongside individual-tree impacts.
The footprint of the building may be unchanged while new circulation, parking, lighting, drainage or surfacing creates the principal arboricultural impacts.
Where the tree officer raises specific concerns, the AIA can be updated with revised drawings or additional analysis rather than relying on a generic rebuttal.
We review the postcode, drawings, council wording and any existing BS5837 information to identify what is already available and what the immediate AIA scope requires.
Where suitable survey information already exists, it can be reviewed. Where it does not, the relevant BS5837 survey/site work can be scoped before the impact assessment is completed.
The current layout is assessed against tree retention, RPAs, crowns and the other development interactions relevant to the site.
The AIA explains the arboricultural effects, mitigation and any later protection, method or supervision information that may be required for planning or construction.
Where the AIA identifies a significant avoidable conflict, early discussion with the architect or project team can be more useful than completing the report around a design that everyone already knows needs to change.
AIA fees vary because the scope varies. A single-tree residential extension using a recent suitable survey is not the same instruction as a multi-acre development with numerous trees, revised CAD drawings, design iterations and complex infrastructure.
The fastest starting point is:
Two quick Arbor Cultural videos covering the planning relationship between trees, proposed development and the impact-assessment process.
Independent arboricultural consultancy for planning, development, property and tree-related projects across London and the South East.
Arbor Cultural provides BS5837 Arboricultural Impact Assessments and planning-tree consultancy across a wide South East service area. The locations below describe areas served, not claims of a physical office in every town.
West Molesey, East Molesey, Esher, Cobham, Oxshott, Weybridge, Walton-on-Thames, Hersham, Thames Ditton, Claygate, Kingston fringe, Epsom, Ewell, Banstead, Tadworth, Ashtead, Leatherhead, Bookham, Fetcham, Dorking, Reigate, Redhill, Horley, Caterham, Oxted, Godstone, Guildford, Woking, West Byfleet, Byfleet, Chobham, Addlestone, Camberley, Frimley, Bagshot, Lightwater, Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere, Hindhead, Cranleigh, Shere, Ripley, Send, Knaphill, Virginia Water, Egham and Staines-upon-Thames.
Richmond, Twickenham, Teddington, Hampton, Hampton Court, Kingston upon Thames, Surbiton, New Malden, Wimbledon, Raynes Park, Putney, Barnes, Mortlake, Wandsworth, Clapham, Battersea, Fulham, Chelsea, Kensington, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Ealing, Hounslow, Brentford, Isleworth, Sutton, Carshalton, Wallington, Croydon, Purley, Coulsdon, Bromley, Beckenham, Chislehurst, Orpington, Dulwich and Crystal Palace.
Crawley, Horsham, Worthing, Shoreham-by-Sea, Southwick, Lancing, Steyning, Storrington, Pulborough, Billingshurst, Petworth, Midhurst, Chichester, Bognor Regis, Littlehampton, Arundel, Angmering, Rustington, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill, Hassocks, Hurstpierpoint, Henfield, Selsey, Bosham, Southwater, Copthorne, Turners Hill and Balcombe.
Brighton, Hove, Portslade, Rottingdean, Saltdean, Peacehaven, Newhaven, Seaford, Lewes, Ringmer, Uckfield, Crowborough, Forest Row, Wadhurst, Heathfield, Hailsham, Polegate, Eastbourne, Bexhill, Battle, Hastings, Rye, Mayfield, Robertsbridge and Ticehurst.
Waterlooville, Havant, Portsmouth, Southsea, Fareham, Gosport, Hayling Island, Petersfield, Liss, Liphook, Bordon, Alton, Farnborough, Aldershot, Fleet, Hook, Yateley, Basingstoke, Winchester, Eastleigh, Southampton, Romsey, Andover, Hedge End, Whiteley, Bishops Waltham, Botley, Lymington, New Milton and Ringwood.
Sevenoaks, Westerham, Edenbridge, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone, West Malling, Kings Hill, Borough Green, Dartford, Gravesend, Swanley, Sidcup fringe, Bexley fringe, Orpington fringe, Ashford, Canterbury, Faversham, Rochester, Chatham, Gillingham, Sittingbourne, Cranbrook, Paddock Wood and Tenterden.
Surrey AIA projects range from house extensions and replacement dwellings to infill sites and larger development. Mature garden and boundary trees frequently influence design in Guildford, Woking, Weybridge, Esher, Cobham, Epsom, Leatherhead, Dorking, Reigate, Redhill, Farnham and surrounding areas.
London sites can combine mature trees with tight access, neighbouring ownership, small gardens, basement or extension proposals and limited construction space. Arbor Cultural covers Richmond, Kingston, Wimbledon, Putney, Wandsworth, Chiswick, Croydon, Bromley and wider South and West London.
AIA and BS5837 planning support is available across Crawley, Horsham, Brighton, Hove, Worthing, Haywards Heath, East Grinstead, Chichester, Lewes, Uckfield and surrounding East and West Sussex areas.
Arbor Cultural also supports AIA projects in Waterlooville, Portsmouth, Winchester, Petersfield, Basingstoke, Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge, Maidstone and other Hampshire and Kent locations across the wider service area.
Start your free quote with your email above. You can add the site, proposed layout and any council wording in the next steps.
Have planning wording you do not understand? Ask Tom. Get an instant first steer.
An AIA is a planning report that assesses how a specific proposed development may affect existing trees and how retained trees may influence the proposed development. It uses relevant tree survey information together with the current design drawings.
AIA stands for Arboricultural Impact Assessment. In tree-related planning work it describes the assessment of development impacts on trees and the arboricultural implications of retaining, removing or working near those trees.
An AIA may be requested where trees are present on or close to a development site and the Local Planning Authority needs to understand how the proposed development affects them. The exact requirement depends on local validation rules, the site, the proposal and any council/tree-officer wording.
No. The survey records the relevant trees and their characteristics. The AIA uses that information together with the proposed design to assess the likely arboricultural impacts of development.
No. A Tree Constraints Plan communicates the important tree constraints to the design team, typically before or during design. The AIA assesses a developed proposal against those constraints.
No. The AIA identifies and assesses impacts. The Tree Protection Plan shows practical protection and controlled working areas for retained trees during construction where required.
No. The AIA is primarily the impact assessment for the proposed design. An AMS provides detailed construction-stage methods for sensitive work around retained trees where such information is needed.
Often, yes. The existing survey needs to be reviewed for suitability, currency and consistency with the current site and drawings. If it remains suitable, it may provide the baseline for the AIA without repeating the entire survey process.
It depends on the project. Accurate topographical information is particularly useful where tree positions, boundaries, existing features and levels need to be compared closely with the proposed layout. For some simple projects other reliable base information may be sufficient.
Send the site postcode, latest proposed layout, any existing BS5837 tree survey or tree schedule, and any council or tree-officer wording. Topographical, drainage, level or engineering drawings can also be useful if already available.
The RPA is a BS5837 planning/design tool calculated from tree stem-diameter information to indicate a minimum rooting area that should be considered through design and construction planning. It is not a claim that all roots occur within that shape or that no controlled work can ever occur inside it.
BS5837 allows the geometry of an RPA to respond to site conditions where there is a defensible arboricultural reason. An adjustment should be justified by actual rooting constraints or site features, not simply reshaped to make a proposed building fit.
Sometimes a planning proposal may include controlled encroachment or specialist construction within or close to an RPA. Whether that is acceptable depends on the tree, extent and location of impact, site conditions, design and proposed methodology. It should be assessed rather than assumed.
Yes. Existing crown spread is an important above-ground constraint. The assessment may also need to consider likely future growth, building clearance and whether the completed relationship is likely to create foreseeable pressure for pruning.
It can where shade is relevant to the design. The significance depends on orientation, crown density, proposed room or garden use, tree value and the wider planning context. Shade is not treated as a single universal pass/fail calculation.
They can be. A tree does not have to be owned by the applicant to be relevant. Neighbouring, highway or other off-site trees may influence a proposal where their crowns or rooting environment interact with the application site.
Yes, where protected trees are relevant to the proposal. The AIA can assess the development impacts and explain the planning relationship, but it should not be treated as blanket permission for additional tree work beyond what the relevant planning or tree-consent process authorises.
Trees in conservation areas can be subject to statutory controls. The AIA can assess their relationship with the proposed development, while any separate tree-work notification or consent requirements should be handled through the appropriate process.
The AIA assesses the proposed retention/removal strategy and its arboricultural implications. The final planning decision sits with the Local Planning Authority, and tree categorisation should not be treated as an automatic instruction to retain or remove a tree.
No. Category C generally indicates lower individual quality or contribution, but landscape context, groups, screening, local policy and cumulative tree loss can still be relevant to the planning assessment.
Yes. One of the most valuable outcomes of early AIA input can be identifying a modest design adjustment that removes or reduces a significant tree conflict before the application is submitted.
The AIA can identify arboricultural constraints and impacts relevant to foundation positioning and excavation. Detailed structural foundation design and calculations remain the responsibility of the appropriate engineer.
It can and often should where routes are known. Drainage, soakaways, service trenches and chambers can create rooting impacts even when the proposed building itself avoids the RPA.
Yes, where demolition is part of the development and could affect retained trees. Existing slabs, buildings, machinery access and the sequence of removal can all be relevant arboricultural considerations.
The next stage depends on the planning process. A Tree Protection Plan may accompany the application, while a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement and supervision requirements are sometimes dealt with later through planning conditions.
Yes. If the layout changes materially, the arboricultural impacts should be reviewed against the new revision. The updated AIA and drawings should clearly identify which proposal has been assessed.
Yes. Where a planning or tree officer raises specific arboricultural concerns, the report can be updated or supplemented to address those points, ideally alongside any necessary design changes.
No. An AIA is professional arboricultural evidence that supports planning review. The Local Planning Authority decides the application in the context of all relevant planning considerations.
Cost varies with site size, number of trees, availability of suitable survey/topographical information, design complexity, level of impact analysis and whether drawings, revisions or additional site work are needed. A fixed-fee proposal can be provided for the agreed scope.
Timing depends on the project, whether suitable tree survey information already exists, drawing availability, site access, complexity and current workload. The quotation can confirm the expected programme for the specific instruction.
Yes. Homeowners often require AIAs for extensions, new dwellings, replacement houses or other planning proposals near trees. You do not need to know every technical report name before contacting Arbor Cultural.
Yes. Early arboricultural input can help architects and developers understand which trees are important constraints and where design changes can avoid later planning problems.
Potentially, yes. The correct approach depends on the refusal reasons or officer comments and the revised proposal. Send the decision or comments, previous arboricultural documents and current drawings so the scope can be defined properly.
Yes. Arbor Cultural provides Tree Protection Plans, Arboricultural Method Statements and construction-stage supervision where those services are appropriate to the planning permission or condition requirements.
Yes. Arbor Cultural provides BS5837 planning and Arboricultural Impact Assessment services across those areas and the wider South East. Send the site postcode if you want the team to confirm coverage.
Send the postcode, latest proposed drawings and any tree survey or council wording you already have. Arbor Cultural will confirm the AIA scope and the next arboricultural planning step.
