FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Landscape architects
AI can help review baseline material and draft parts of an LVIA or LVA, but judgements on sensitivity, magnitude and significance must remain the practitioner's own. These chapters are tested under cross-examination, so weak AI drafting is exposed in public.
Part of: AI in Landscape architects
In short
Landscape and visual impact assessment depends on professional judgement applied consistently with GLVIA3. AI tools can speed up baseline review, summarise policy and designations and draft descriptive text. The Castle Way Energy scoping report (June 2026) shows the accepted model: AI for baseline review and summarisation, expert verification, and no AI for judgement, significance or conclusions. Planning Inspectorate guidance requires AI use to be declared. If an AI-drafted chapter is inconsistent or wrong, the client may claim wasted costs, and PI usually responds subject to the policy terms.
LVIA chapters for EIA development and shorter landscape and visual appraisals (LVA) involve a large volume of desk material: character assessments, designations, policy, previous decisions and site photographs. Practices use AI tools to summarise that material, draft baseline descriptions of receptors and character areas, produce first drafts of policy sections and check internal consistency between tables and text.
A published example is the Castle Way Energy NSIP scoping report AI Usage Statement (June 2026, ref EN0110037). It records that a generative AI assistant was used for baseline information review and summarisation in the landscape and visual chapter, with expert verification, and that AI was not used for professional judgement, significance or conclusions.
GLVIA3 assessments rest on reasoned judgements, and the LI's LITGN-2024-01 notes and clarifications on GLVIA3 (August 2024) reinforce the need for clear, consistent methodology. The parts of an assessment that should remain with the named practitioner include:
AI tools tend to generate fluent but generic reasoning and can apply terms inconsistently across receptors. That is exactly what an opposing witness looks for.
Under the LI Code of Practice, Rule 6 requires competence to deliver the assessment, Rule 10 and R10g(a) require impartiality, and R11g(a) requires honesty and transparency in all aspects of the work. The Planning Inspectorate's AI casework guidance requires intentional AI use to draft, summarise or analyse to be declared, with the parts identified, checks described and responsibility for accuracy confirmed. Each expert declares for their own documents. The wider EIA picture is in AI summaries of EIA and technical reports, and the visuals that sit alongside the chapter are covered in AI visualisations and TGN 06/19.
Illustrative scenario. A practice uses an AI tool to draft receptor descriptions and effects tables for an LVA supporting a solar farm application. The tool lifts sensitivity ratings from an older character assessment and applies them inconsistently between the text and the tables. A public footpath crossing the site is described as a minor route. At appeal, the council's witness shows the inconsistencies and the missed receptor, the inspector finds the assessment unreliable, and the appellant later claims the cost of a fresh assessment and the delay from the practice.
A missing or incomplete AI declaration adds a second line of attack, and improper AI use may be treated as unreasonable behaviour in a costs application.
A client claim that a negligent LVIA caused a refusal, failed appeal or abortive costs is a typical professional negligence claim, and landscape PI commonly responds, subject to the terms, the excess and the limit. Insurers may ask whether the practice followed GLVIA3, whether the named assessor reviewed the AI drafting and whether AI use was disclosed. Proving that a better assessment would have produced a different decision is often difficult for the claimant, but defence costs still mount. See professional indemnity insurance for landscape architects and does landscape architects' PI cover AI errors?.
A short set of controls keeps AI in the support role:
Apex arranges PI for LVIA practitioners and landscape consultancies. A broker can check that your limit fits the schemes you assess and that the wording does not restrict cover for AI-assisted reports. Related: AI landscape character studies and the landscape architecture hub.
AI can help with baseline review, summarisation and drafting descriptive text, but the judgements on sensitivity, magnitude and significance should be the assessor's own under GLVIA3. The Castle Way Energy statement in June 2026 is an example of AI limited to baseline work, with expert verification and no AI for conclusions.
For Planning Inspectorate casework, yes. Intentional AI use to draft text, summarise or analyse must be declared, saying which parts and what checks were made, and confirming responsibility for accuracy. Each expert declares for their own documents, so the landscape assessor makes a separate declaration.
The practice and the named practitioner, not the AI tool. Rule 6 of the LI Code requires competence to deliver the service, and the client contracted with the practice. A negligence claim would usually be notified to the practice's PI insurer and handled subject to the policy terms.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
