A recent arboricultural assessment for the proposed “Land at Padden Brook” development in Romiley has drawn scrutiny after technical reviewers identified what they describe as “gaps, omissions and a lack of construction-level detail” in a key Tree Protection document.

While the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), based on BS 5837:2012 guidance, is broadly compliant in structure, concerns have been raised that it may fall short of what is now expected by planning officers when developments encroach into sensitive root protection areas (RPAs).

Competent on paper, but lacking engineering substance

The AMS has been described as “methodologically sound but operationally thin,” with reviewers acknowledging that it follows standard best practice in tree protection sequencing, fencing specification and arboricultural supervision.

However, critics argue that this compliance is largely procedural rather than practical.

One assessment notes that while the document sets out protective fencing, monitoring regimes and excavation supervision, it “fails to meaningfully explain how construction will actually happen within root zones without causing damage.”

Major concerns over missing construction detail

The most significant criticism centres on the lack of engineering integration within RPAs.

Despite acknowledging that development will encroach into protected root zones, the AMS reportedly provides no clear detail on:

  • Foundation design or type
  • Retaining wall construction methodology
  • Excavation depths and sequencing
  • Service routing strategies
  • Slab build-up or no-dig solutions

A reviewer described this omission as a “fundamental weakness,” adding that the document reads more like a procedural checklist than a buildable construction strategy.

“Open-ended” approach to root pruning questioned

Another point of concern relates to the document’s guidance on root pruning.

The AMS allows for roots above 25mm to be retained “where possible,” but also permits larger roots to be pruned without clearly defined upper limits or decision thresholds.

Critics say this introduces uncertainty, with one reviewer warning that the lack of strict parameters could lead to “uncontrolled root severance at contractor discretion,” particularly risky for mature trees such as oak.

Retaining wall works under-specified

The proposed retaining wall associated with tree removal has also been flagged as insufficiently detailed.

While the AMS references its necessity, it does not provide construction drawings or explain how excavation near adjacent RPAs will be managed.

Reviewers argue that retaining wall construction is one of the highest-risk activities in arboricultural terms, yet here it is “treated in passing rather than as a critical engineering interface.”

Missing safeguards and contingency planning

Further criticism highlights the absence of a clear contingency procedure for unexpected site conditions, such as:

  • Discovery of major roots during excavation
  • Emergency stop-work protocols
  • Escalation procedures to arboricultural consultants

There is also limited clarity on site logistics, including haul routes, storage areas and ground protection measures—factors that can significantly affect tree health through soil compaction.

Planning compliance: acceptable, but fragile

While the AMS is likely to satisfy basic planning condition discharge requirements, reviewers caution that its robustness at construction stage is questionable.

It has been described as:

  • “Adequate for approval in principle”
  • “Weak for contractor execution”
  • “Insufficiently detailed for high-risk root zones”

One assessment concluded that approval would likely need to be conditional on further technical submissions, particularly engineering drawings and construction sequencing plans.

Trees at risk highlighted

The document identifies several retained trees potentially affected by development works, including mature specimens and a woodland edge group.

Particular concern has been raised around mature oak trees and woodland edge vegetation, which are considered highly sensitive to:

  • Soil compaction
  • Root severance
  • Ground level changes

Overall verdict

In summary, while the AMS demonstrates familiarity with BS 5837:2012 principles and includes several strong procedural elements, critics argue it does not go far enough in bridging the gap between arboricultural theory and construction reality.

As one reviewer put it, the document “protects trees on paper, but does not convincingly demonstrate how they will be protected on site.”

For now, the “Land at Padden Brook” application appears likely to pass initial arboricultural scrutiny—but only, it seems, on the condition that more detailed engineering and construction information follows.

LALLY TREE MANAGEMENT LIMITED filing history – Find and update company information – GOV.UK