FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Landscape architects
The Landscape Institute has issued no AI guidance, so its December 2021 Code of Practice governs AI-assisted work through its general rules on competence, honesty, agreements, data and insurance. Members who use AI need to know which rules bite and how.
Part of: AI in Landscape architects
In short
As at October 2026 the Landscape Institute has no AI guidance, policy or Code provision, and its Code of Practice does not mention technology or software. The Code still applies in full: Rule 6 limits members to work they are competent to deliver, Rule 11 requires honesty and transparency in all aspects of the work, R4g(c) requires written agreements covering intellectual property, R4g(e) and (f) protect data and confidential information, Rule 10 requires impartiality and Rule 5 requires appropriate PI. ASLA's December 2025 policy is a useful benchmark but does not bind UK members.
The LI's Code of Practice dates from December 2021 and contains Rules with guidance notes (numbered R4g, R5g and so on). It does not refer to technology, digital tools, software, visualisation or AI. Breaches are handled under the Disciplinary Regulations (June 2025), and the conduct and complaints page lists no published disciplinary outcomes. The Code is due for its three-yearly review, and whether AI will be added is an open question.
The LI's work on AI so far has been educational. The table below sets out the documents members most often ask about and their status.
| Document | Date | Status | AI content |
|---|---|---|---|
| LI Code of Practice | December 2021 | Binding on members | None; applies through general rules |
| LI Disciplinary Regulations | June 2025 | Binding procedure | None |
| TGN 06/19 Visual Representation of Development Proposals | September 2019; under review since January 2024 | Technical guidance | None, but sets the standard for any AI visual |
| TGN 01/13 Implications of BIM on PI Insurance | 2013; rebadged as guidance March 2016 | Guidance | None; advises telling insurers about new digital workflows |
| LI Campus session on AI visualisation | 3 December 2024 | Training | AI image generation and generative design |
| Planning Inspectorate AI casework guidance | 6 September 2024; updated 23 September 2026 | Procedural requirement for evidence | Declaration of AI use, including images |
| ASLA public policy on AI | Announced 16 December 2025 | US policy; not binding in the UK | Responsibility for all deliverables stays with the landscape architect |
Because the Code is outcome-based, the practical question is what each rule demands when part of the work comes from an AI tool. The rules most often engaged are:
Rule 6 does not ban using a tool for a task the member does not fully understand, but it does require the member to be competent to deliver the service. In practice that means a chartered landscape architect who uses AI to draft an LVIA baseline, classify landscape character or size a swale must be able to verify the result to the standard a competent practitioner would apply. Where the task belongs to another discipline, R6g points towards seeking advice or appointing a specialist, as discussed in AI in SuDS design.
Rule 11 matters most where AI shapes something a client, inspector or the public will rely on. A Planning Inspectorate declaration is one form of transparency; a line in the appointment or report explaining how AI was used is another. The TGN 06/19 visualisation guide applies this to images.
R4g(c) is the rule most practices can act on straight away. Written agreements should already cover intellectual property, and AI raises fresh questions about who owns AI-assisted designs and images, whether the practice may use client material in AI tools, and what limitations apply. Our guide to AI, copyright and design ownership covers the IP side. Changes to scope, such as a client asking for rapid AI options, should be recorded under R4g(d).
Under R4g(e) and (f), client briefs, site surveys, landowner details and unpublished schemes fed into AI tools remain confidential information and, where they identify people, personal data. Practices using automated decisions about individuals should also note the UK GDPR provisions inserted by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, s.80, in force from 5 February 2026.
Rule 10 and R10g(a) require impartiality. In landscape work this most often arises in LVIA, appeals and character studies, where the practitioner's professional judgement must not bend to a client's commercial aim. AI drafting tools tend to produce confident, fluent text that can carry a tone or conclusion nobody consciously chose. Keeping judgements on sensitivity, magnitude and significance with the named practitioner, and recording any conflict in writing under R10g(b), protects both the evidence and the member.
The American Society of Landscape Architects adopted a public policy on AI announced on 16 December 2025. It states that the professional landscape architect "must maintain responsibility for all deliverables and services" and treats AI as a support tool, not a replacement for professional judgement. ASLA policy does not bind UK practitioners, but it states plainly the position the LI Code reaches through Rules 6 and 11: the human professional answers for the output.
Rule 5 requires appropriate PI covering relevant landscape services, and R5g(a) extends that to all landscape work done by or on behalf of a practice. The LI sets no minimum limit or wording. If a member breaches Rules 6 or 11 through careless AI use, a disciplinary finding is a separate matter from any civil claim; PI usually responds to the civil claim, subject to the wording, and some policies include limited cover for disciplinary defence costs. TGN 01/13 advised telling insurers before adopting new digital workflows, which is sensible for significant AI use too. See does landscape architects' PI cover AI errors?, do landscape architects need PI? and the AI in landscape architecture overview.
Apex arranges PI for LI members and Registered Practices. A broker can check that your cover meets Rule 5 for the services you actually provide and explain how your wording would treat a claim arising from AI-assisted work.
No. The LI has published no AI guidance, policy or Code provision as at October 2026, and nothing in the Code prohibits AI. Members must still meet Rule 6 on competence, Rule 11 on honesty and transparency, R4g on agreements and data, and Rule 5 on PI when they use AI tools.
The Code does not say so expressly. R11g(a) requires honesty and transparency in all aspects of the work, and R4g(c) requires written agreements covering scope, limitations and intellectual property. Explaining material AI use in the appointment is the safer reading, and Planning Inspectorate evidence requires a formal declaration.
No. The American Society of Landscape Architects policy, announced in December 2025, applies to its US members. It is a useful benchmark because it states that the landscape architect must maintain responsibility for all deliverables and services, which matches how the LI Code works in practice.
It could, if it amounted to a breach of the Code, for example work beyond competence under Rule 6 or a lack of honesty under Rule 11. Complaints are handled under the June 2025 Disciplinary Regulations. No AI-related LI disciplinary outcome had been published as at October 2026.
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.
