21 St Marys Grove Barnes London SW13 0JA Data via plota.co.uk

PA26/1176 - Works to Tree/s in Conservation Area Approved

Proposal

T2 Holly (x1) Reduce height by 1.5-2m. Final height 5m and width 2.5-3.5m. Reason: To maintain at a smaller size. General maintenance. T3 Holly (x1) Reduce height by 2m. Final height 5m and width 2.5-3.5m. Reason: To maintain at a smaller size.General maintenance. T4 Cypress (x1) Reduce height by 1.5m. Final height 5m and width 2.5-3.5m. Reason: To maintain at a smaller size. General maintenance. T5 Holly (x1) Reduce height by 1.5m. Final height 5m and width 2.5-3.5m. Reason: To maintain at a smaller size. General maintenance. T6 & & T7 Maples (x2) Reduce crown back to previous points (approximately 2.5-3m off height and 1.5-2m off width).Final heights 8-9m and width 6m. Reason: To contain the height and spread of the trees within the garden setting. T8 Holm Oak (x1) Reduce crown back to previous points (approximately 2m off height and 1-1.5m off width).Final height 10 and width 8m. Reason: To contain the height and spread of the trees within the garden setting. Preven overhang over neighbouring property. T10 (Front) Apple (x1) Reduce crown by 1.5m all round.Final height 3m and width 3m. Reason: Reason: To maintain at a smaller size. General maintenance. T11 (Front) Fig (x1) Reduce crown by 1.5-2m all round.Final height 4m and width 3m. Reason: Reason: To maintain at a smaller size. General maintenance. T12 (Front) Cherry (x1) Reduce height by 3-5m and width by 1m.Final height 4.5m and width 2m. Reason: Reason: To maintain at a smaller size. General maintenance. T13 (Front) Apple (x1) Reduce height by 1.5-2m and width by 0.5-1m.Final height 4m and width 4m. Reason: Reason: To maintain at a smaller size. General maintenance. Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

Received
1 Apr 2026
Approved
13 May 2026

Approved on 13 May 2026 · Delegated Decision · Last checked 12 Jul 2026

Site constraints 7

Barnes Common conservation area
Demolition needs planning permission and permitted development is restricted.
The council must give weight to preserving or enhancing the area's character and appearance. Not every council has published its boundaries as open data.
Council document ↗
Air quality management area: Richmond AQMA
The council has declared the area as failing an air quality objective.
Schemes that add traffic, parking or combustion plant are assessed against the area's action plan and may need an air quality assessment.
Council record ↗
Agricultural land, grade 3a
Best and most versatile land (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Predicted from the national soil map. A site survey can differ.
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.
Local nature reserve 108 m away: Barnes Common
Work nearby can need a habitats assessment.
Harm to a protected site is only accepted where there is no alternative and an overriding public interest.
Public byway open to all traffic 24 m away
Matters where it crosses or adjoins the site: obstructing a path without a diversion order is an offence, and work cannot start until the order is confirmed.
Compiled from highway authority data, not the legal definitive map. A few authorities have not published, so no path shown is not proof there is none.
Habitat network: Network Enhancement Zone 2
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
Also on the record
Designated open space 29 m away.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3 · Not green belt · No listed building at the site

Checked on 11 September 2026. Historic England, the Environment Agency, Natural England 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 Richmond upon Thames - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Application type
Works to Tree/s in Conservation Area
Postcode
SW13 0JA
Received
1 Apr 2026
Validated
1 Apr 2026
Ward
Mortlake & Barnes Common Ward [MRB]
Case officer
Show
Target decision
13 May 2026
Decision
Raise No objection
Decision date
13 May 2026
Decision level
Delegated Decision
Applicant
Show
Agent
Edward Payne and Co Ltd

How this decision compares

Decided in 42 days from validation, 11 days slower than Richmond upon Thames's median of 31 for tree and landscaping works. Approved, as 98% of tree and landscaping works here are.

98%decided within 8 weeks
98%approved
501decided in the last year

Plota live figures for tree and landscaping works decided by Richmond upon Thames in the last twelve months, from validation. Richmond upon Thames decision record →

Consultation & key dates

Alt. reference
PP-14822011
Richmond upon Thames
Planning Authority Score
4.4/10
Below average
#182 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Other decisions

Richmond upon Thames ranks #130 out of 296 councils for householder decision speed. Richmond upon Thames is also one of the strictest councils - it refuses more householder applications than almost any other, with only 82% approved vs 90% nationally.

One of the strictest councils
only 82% approved vs 90% nationally
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Richmond upon Thames decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
81%
Overall approval rate
Below avg (87%) #257 of 296
82%
Householder approved
Below avg (90%) #268 of 296
69%
Decided in 8 weeks
Above avg (63%) #130 of 296
35%
Extended time limit
Below avg (41%) #104 of 296
68%
Minor dwellings approved
181 decided (1-9 homes)
100%
Major dwellings approved
3 decided (10+ homes)
47%
Change of use approved
17 decided
1,888
Total decisions
358 refused in the year to March 2026