Rethinking Tree Surveys for Planning

A Smarter Approach to Tree Surveys in Planning

The recent comments by Rachel Reeves on environmental regulations, including references to bats and newts, have reignited debate about environmental protection and the planning system. LinkedIn is awash with highly emotive responses on nature’s role in development and its perceived impact on economic growth. Given the intensity of the debate, one could be forgiven for thinking she is following in the footsteps of Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward (1958-1962)—a campaign that sought to rapidly industrialize China but, in doing so, ignored ecological considerations, leading to widespread deforestation, habitat destruction and famine.

At AWA Tree Consultants, we are not ecologists, but we work closely alongside them and are actively involved in discussions on planning, and sustainable growth. The political debate around planning reform is unavoidable, but beyond the headlines lies a real opportunity to shape better outcomes for housing, trees, and nature. With the right approach, reforms can support development while also enhancing biodiversity and tree conservation. Arboricultural consultants have a critical role in ensuring these changes lead to positive, practical solutions.

The Need for a More Proportionate Approach

At AWA, we carry out tree surveys for planning across developments of all scales, and one thing is clear—many of the trees we assess are not particularly special. They could, relatively easily, be replaced, or their value mitigated. Yet, the current system often demands excessive levels of detail and assessment, even when a BS5837 tree survey has already shown that a site contains only low value trees.

A more streamlined approach to assessing these features and their mitigation wouldn’t be a bad thing. Right now, delays are created, and money and effort are wasted on extensive arboricultural impact assessments, drawn-out back-and-forth with Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), and demands for high-level reporting—even when the planning impact on trees is minimal.

Where the Current System Creates Unnecessary Barriers

The current system often creates unnecessary barriers that slow down development without providing meaningful environmental benefits.

Excessive tree surveys and arboricultural method statements are a common issue, with LPAs frequently demanding detailed arboricultural impact assessments even when initial tree surveys for planning applications indicate very limited constraints. This burden may become even more onerous with revisions to BS5837, as new long-term crown cover assessments could be required in all cases, further complicating an already time-consuming process.

Another challenge we regularly encounter is lengthy negotiations over minor encroachments into Root Protection Areas (RPAs) of unnoteworthy trees—despite the fact that the practical impact is negligible and could be easily managed with standard mitigation.

Overstretched and underfunded LPAs are part of the issue, with many clients reporting that the demand for extensive, high-level information feels more like a stalling tactic than a genuine planning necessity.

Protecting What Truly Matters

As arboricultural consultants, valuing trees is a fundamental part of our role—whether through BS5837 tree surveys, tree preservation order (TPO) assessments, tree risk surveys, monetary valuations, or tree risk-benefit evaluations. In the early stages of a development scheme, our expertise would be better focused on identifying which trees are truly worth retaining and warrant more detailed arboricultural assessments, and which are replaceable. This approach would ensure that resources are directed where they have the most impact, streamlining tree reports without compromising genuine environmental value.

A more efficient and proportionate system would allow planning decisions to be made once a baseline tree survey has identified tree values on-site. In most cases, it would be appropriate to grant planning approval at this stage, with detailed arboricultural impact assessments, mitigation planting, and tree protection measures forming part of planning conditions before development starts.

None of this removes the fact that some trees are irreplaceable. There will always be a need for qualified and experienced arboriculturists and tree surveyors to identify these and ensure they are protected.

At AWA, we believe that as arboriculturists, valuing trees is a fundamental part of our role—whether for BS5837 tree retention categories, TPO assessments, tree safety surveys, or mortgage tree reports. Our expertise should be focused on identifying what’s worth retaining, allowing for more targeted tree surveys and arboricultural method statements, while avoiding unnecessary delays over replaceable trees.

By focusing efforts where they matter most, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all demand for highly detailed tree reports, we can create a smarter, more effective planning system that benefits both development and the natural environment.