Centre Of Pond 59M From 4 The Stables, Potterton 48M From Unnamed Road Potterton Lane Barwick In Elmet Leeds… Data via plota.co.uk

26/04327/TR - Tree Works Decided

Proposal

T1-T5 5 Ash trees - removal to ground level. According to guidance from the Leeds City Council Ash Dieback website, they appear to be a mix of Stage Class 3, with 25-50% canopy loss, and Stage 2, with 50-75% canopy dead, showing clear signs of crown decline. The risk to people is low as the trees are located at the edge of a field on private property. T6- Sycamore for removal to ground level. The removal is to allow more light to the pond and reduce leaf debris build up in the pond. The trees surrounding the pond to the north of the hall were planted by the owner several decades ago. While tree planting continues across the estate and around the pond, the immediate area has now become overstocked. The pond holds historical significance to the hall, having once served as a tannin pond. The owners? current priority is to remove five ash trees and one sycamore from around the pond to increase light penetration, reduce leaf debris accumulation, and facilitate its restoration. A large, mature oak will be preserved, along with select smaller, later-planted trees, to help define and frame the pond. Over the last few years a significant number of new trees have been planted to replace any trees that have had the need for removal, and this includes a new hawthorn hedge. New trees are grown from seed by the owner and planted out when they are at a stage to be able to survive. The owners goal is to plant as many trees as possible, and I believe this practice will continue until they?re no longer able to do so because of their age. Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
31 Jul 2026
✓
Split decision
21 Sept 2026

Split decision on 21 Sept 2026 · Delegated Decision · Last checked 22 Sept 2026

Site constraints 6

Green belt: South and West Yorkshire
Inappropriate development needs very special circumstances.
Green belt policy allows a short list of exceptions, such as limited extensions and replacement buildings. Anything else needs very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm. Some green belt land can count as grey belt, where it does not strongly serve the green belt's purposes. The council decides this in its green belt assessment or on each application, so we do not mark it here.
Read the government guidance ↗
Agricultural land, grade 2
Best and most versatile land (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Source: the Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map (Defra and Natural England, 2025; the Welsh Government's Predictive ALC Map 2 in Wales), a model rather than a site survey. Natural England's Provisional ALC map (1:250,000, 1970s) agrees.
Where development of farmland is needed, policy prefers poorer land over the best and most versatile (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Three sources: Natural England's post-1988 field surveys, which are definitive where they exist; the Defra predictive map for England (2025) and the Welsh Government predictive map, modelled from the soil map with 3a and 3b split; and the 1970s provisional map, which planners and other services still show, coarser and with grade 3 undivided. Where the provisional and predicted grades disagree, treat the predicted grade as the current estimate and expect an application to carry its own survey.
3 listed buildings within 150 m of the postcode pin
Nearest: West Wing, Potterton Hall, Grade II*, about 8 m from the postcode pin · 1 Grade II*, 2 Grade II
The site itself is not listed. Listed building consent is needed for work that affects the special interest of a listed building, inside or out, on top of planning permission. Setting can be a consideration for buildings nearby; there is no fixed radius.
Show all 3 with distances
Historic England ↗
Scheduled monument about 99 m away: Deserted medieval village of Potterton
Its setting is a consideration for work nearby.
Nationally important archaeology protected by the Secretary of State. Work that affects the monument or its setting is rarely permitted.
Historic England ↗
Habitat network: Network Expansion Zone
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
Also on the record
Radon affected area, class 2.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3

Checked on 6 October 2026. The pin for this application is the centre of its postcode rather than the building, so distances to nearby designations are measured from the postcode and can be out by the width of the postcode area. Historic England, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the British Geological Survey and UK Health Security Agency (radon, contains BGS materials © UKRI) and council datasets, Open Government Licence. A boundary can run through a site and the council holds the definitive record: confirm with the council before relying on this.

Work with planning data?

Every application in Leeds - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Council
Leeds
Application type
Tree Works
Postcode
LS15 4NN
Received
31 Jul 2026
Validated
31 Jul 2026
Ward
Harewood
Parish
Barwick-in-Elmet/Scholes Parish Council
Target decision
24 Sept 2026
Decision
Split decision
Decision date
21 Sept 2026
Decision level
Delegated Decision
Applicant
Show
Agent
Strom Arb Consultants

Public comments

No public comments yet.

Last counted 22 Sept 2026

Read the comments on the council site ↗

Consultation & key dates

Statutory expiry
24 Sept 2026
Env. assessment
No
Leeds
Planning Authority Score
5.3/10
Average
#131 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Householder decisions

Leeds is faster than most councils at deciding householder applications, ranking #95 out of 296. Householder applications are slightly less likely to be approved here (85%) than the national average (90%).

Faster than most councils
for householder decisions
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Leeds decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
83%
Overall approval rate
Below avg (87%) #238 of 296
85%
Householder approved
Below avg (90%) #249 of 296
73%
Decided in 8 weeks
Above avg (63%) #95 of 296
33%
Extended time limit
Below avg (41%) #78 of 296
70%
Minor dwellings approved
208 decided (1-9 homes)
86%
Major dwellings approved
36 decided (10+ homes)
68%
Change of use approved
279 decided
3,681
Total decisions
613 refused in the year to March 2026