The Hazel bush in question is in the corner of the north and east walls of the memorial garden of St Mary's Church Data via plota.co.uk

PA26/1199 - Works to Tree/s in Conservation Area Approved

Proposal

The Parochial Church Council is proposing to remove a large multi-stemmed Purple Hazel shrub, shown as T08 on the attached Site Plan 'St Mary's Church Existing Site Plan and Tree Constraints' and described in the attached schedule. We are proposing to remove this Hazel to increase the size of the memorial beds in the Memorial garden of St Mary's. There is currently limited space for the burial of ashes of the deceased members of the community, and we are looking to extend the beds along the North and East walls. The Hazel would be replaced with different planting, more suitable for the memorial beds, similar to the existing planting, namely rose bushes, small shrubs and bulbs. The Hazel has become too large and only recently exposed when work was done to remove the items in the garden which were being used by rough sleepers. It would also greatly improve surveillance of the garden beds in this area. We believe the new layout in the garden will be much more accessible and appreciated by all. Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

Received
7 Apr 2026
Approved
13 May 2026

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

Site constraints 12

T0823 - T2 - YewT0663 - T1 - Giant SequoiaT0823 - T3 - Cedar
Grade II* listed: Church of St Mary
List entry 1080852 · 6 m from the pin · 20 more listed buildings within 150 m (1 Grade II*, 19 Grade II)
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 the other 20 with distances
Historic England ↗
Metropolitan Open Land
Green belt level protection inside London.
The London Plan gives Metropolitan Open Land the same protection as green belt: inappropriate development needs very special circumstances.
Twickenham Riverside 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 ↗
Public footpath 11 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.
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 ↗
Town centre: Twickenham
A designated centre in the London Plan.
Shops, services and active frontages are protected in centres, and main town centre uses are steered here first.
Registered park or garden 23 m away: York House
Its setting is a consideration for work nearby.
Registered parks and gardens, battlefields, world heritage sites and protected wrecks are designated heritage assets: harm needs clear and convincing justification.
Historic England ↗
Local nature reserve 270 m away: Ham Lands
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.
T0823 - T2 - YewCouncil record
Recorded by the council for this site.
Council site ↗
T0663 - T1 - Giant SequoiaCouncil record
Recorded by the council for this site.
Council site ↗
T0823 - T3 - CedarCouncil record
Recorded by the council for this site.
Council site ↗
Also on the record
Inside the Richmond upon Thames built-up area.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3 · Not green belt · No scheduled monument 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
TW1 3DT
Received
7 Apr 2026
Validated
7 Apr 2026
Ward
Twickenham Riverside Ward [TRW]
Case officer
Show
Target decision
19 May 2026
Decision
Raise No objection
Decision date
13 May 2026
Decision level
Delegated Decision
Applicant
Show

How this decision compares

Decided in 36 days from validation, 5 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-14833952
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