The method statement section of an arboricultural assessment

An arboricultural method statement is the part of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment that tells the council exactly how each piece of work near a retained tree will be carried out, who will do it, and at what point an arboriculturist has to stand on the site and watch. It is written to BS 5837:2012 and it is the section that comes back marked up more often than any other. Officers will accept the loss of a tree if the case is made. They will not accept a method statement that says work near roots will proceed with care.

The statement sits downstream of the survey and the impact appraisal. By the time you write it, the tree schedule is fixed, the categories are assigned, the root protection areas are calculated, and the layout has stopped moving. What remains is the promise: this is what will happen on the ground between the day the hoarding goes up and the day the last kerb is laid.

What the statement has to commit to

A useful method statement is a sequence, not a set of principles. It names the operation, the tree or group affected, the constraint, the technique, the plant to be used, and the person responsible. Anything that cannot be written in that form is usually a design problem dressed up as a construction problem.

The core commitments are the order of works, the protective barriers and ground protection, any construction inside a root protection area, the route of every service, the arboricultural supervision regime, and the arrangements for site induction and record keeping. Demolition belongs in it too, because demolition plant tracking across an unprotected rooting zone does more damage than the new build ever will.

Write it so a site manager who has never read a British Standard can follow it. Cross-reference the tree protection plan drawing number in the text, and keep the numbering the same in both. Where a council later attaches a condition requiring development to proceed "in accordance with the approved arboricultural method statement", that drawing number becomes part of the permission.

Protective fencing and where the line goes

The default position under BS 5837:2012 is a fit-for-purpose barrier erected on the root protection area boundary before any equipment, materials or machinery arrive, and left undisturbed until construction finishes. The standard's default specification is a vertical and horizontal scaffold framework with welded mesh panels bolted to it, braced to resist an impact, with all-weather signage fixed to the outside face.

State the fence type, the position by reference to the plan, the date it goes up, and who checks it. A statement that says fencing will be provided in accordance with BS 5837 and stops there gives the council nothing to enforce.

Where the barrier cannot follow the full root protection area, say so openly and explain the compensation. That usually means ground protection: a proprietary load-spreading system, or geotextile with a granular layer and running surface, designed for the plant that will actually cross it. Name the plant. A 1.5 tonne mini excavator and a 30 tonne concrete wagon are not the same problem.

The area inside the barrier is a construction exclusion zone. Spell out what that means in practice, because the breaches are always the same: cement washout, fuel storage, site cabins, spoil heaps, scaffold bases and the skip that arrives on a Friday afternoon.

No-dig construction inside a root protection area

When a path, driveway or parking bay has to sit over rooting ground, the answer is a no-dig build-up rather than a conventional excavated sub-base. The principle is to raise the surface rather than lower it, spreading the load across a cellular confinement system laid over a geotextile on the existing grade, filled with an open-graded angular aggregate.

The details that matter to a reviewing officer are the depth of the build-up, the aggregate grading, whether any existing surface material is removed by hand, and how the finished level ties into the adjoining ground without creating a step. Levels are where these designs fail. A no-dig surface that has to meet an existing threshold often quietly turns back into an excavation at the last metre.

Say who designed the build-up. Structural adequacy for vehicle loading is an engineering question, and the arboriculturist specifies the arboricultural constraints rather than the pavement design. Councils increasingly ask for both names.

Services, drainage and trenchless routes

Service runs are the most common cause of post-permission tree loss, partly because utility contractors arrive months after the arboriculturist has left. Put the service corridors on the tree protection plan and describe them in the statement.

Outside the root protection area, conventional open-cut trenching is fine. Inside it, the options are a trenchless technique such as directional drilling or thrust boring at a depth that passes beneath the main structural roots, hand digging with roots over a stated diameter retained and any severed root cleanly cut back to sound tissue, or a route change. Set a threshold and hold to it. A common approach is that roots above a given diameter are not severed without the arboriculturist attending, and that finding one stops work at that location.

Foul and surface water drainage deserves the same treatment as the incoming utilities. If the drainage hierarchy pushes you towards infiltration, the soakaway position needs checking against the rooting zones early, because moving it later tends to be impossible.

Supervision, hold points and who signs

Arboricultural supervision is the mechanism that turns a document into a control. Set out the hold points: barrier installation signed off before any other activity, demolition within a given distance of a retained tree, installation of the no-dig surface, any excavation inside a root protection area, and the removal of protection at the end.

For each hold point, say what the arboriculturist does, what is recorded, and what happens if the works are not acceptable. Give the frequency of routine site monitoring visits and say who receives the reports. Several authorities ask for monitoring reports to be sent to the tree officer, and the condition will say so if they do.

The author matters here. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment and its method statement are documents councils expect from a suitably qualified arboriculturist, usually one with professional membership and current practice in BS 5837 work, and professional review is strongly advised before anything is submitted. Sign-off carries liability, and a consultant who has not seen the site will not give it.

Induction, monitoring and the site record

Every operative who works inside the zone of influence should receive a tree protection induction, and the statement should say who gives it, what it covers and how attendance is recorded. Pin a copy of the tree protection plan in the site office and at the access gate.

Keep a written record. Dated photographs of the barrier line, the induction register, the supervision visit notes and any variation agreed on site make up the evidence pack. When a tree officer visits and finds a scaffold pole inside the fence, the record is what decides whether that is an incident or a pattern.

Variations are allowed, but they should be agreed in writing with the arboriculturist and, where the condition requires it, with the authority before the work happens. Retrospective agreement is not agreement.

Getting the condition discharged

Most consents attach tree protection as a condition that has to be discharged before development starts, and conditions of that kind now require the applicant's written agreement before they are imposed under section 100ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Read the wording closely. There is a real difference between a condition that requires a method statement to be submitted and approved, and one that requires development to be carried out in accordance with a statement already approved.

Submit the discharge application with the method statement, the tree protection plan at a legible scale, the tree schedule, and the supervision schedule. Reference the condition number in the covering description. Where the statement has changed since the application, say what changed and why, because an officer comparing two versions without a note will assume the worst.

And leave time. Discharge of conditions typically runs to eight weeks, and starting on site before such a condition is discharged can render the whole permission vulnerable.

PlanScope can produce a first draft of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment structured to UK planning policy, with the section headings a council expects and TO BE CONFIRMED markers wherever site data is missing, and you can see how it fits alongside the rest of your application pack in the full list of report types. Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports your site is likely to need.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required, and this is general guidance rather than legal advice.