Hill House 7 Temple Gardens Moor Park Rickmansworth Hertfordshire WD3 1QJ Data via plota.co.uk

26/0709/TCA - Works to trees in a conservation area Approved

Proposal

TG2 Sycamore X2 group - left side of house Sectional dismantle using rigging equipment the large TG2 Sycamore X2 group located at the left side of house. Leave stump low. Remove resulting debris. REASONS: *The trees are so large now that they are destroying the original 1930s hedge and large branches frequently fall, probably due to squirrel damage, causing damage to the outhouse and washing line. *The trees are less than 5 meters from the house and we have already had to underpin the part nearest to the trees. *The lack of any 'amenity value' is also highlighted by the fact that they are not only on private property but not visible to the general public as Temple Gardens is a private road owned by the house-owners with no rights of way. The only person who can see the trees is our neighbour and he wants them cut down as well Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
30 Apr 2026
✓
Approved
26 May 2026

Approved on 26 May 2026 · Delegated Decision · Last checked 5 Jul 2026

Site constraints 8

2 listed buildings within 150 m of the postcode pin
Nearest: 6, Temple Gardens, Grade II, about 1 m from the postcode pin · 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 2 with distances
Historic England ↗
Green belt: London
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 ↗
Registered park or garden: Moor Park
Nationally designated heritage. Its significance and setting carry great weight.
Registered parks and gardens, battlefields, world heritage sites and protected wrecks are designated heritage assets: harm needs clear and convincing justification.
Historic England ↗
Moor Park Estate 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 ↗
Agricultural land, grade 3a
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. 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.
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; Priority habitat about 31 m away: No main habitat but additional habitats present.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3 · No scheduled monument at the site

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 Three Rivers - 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 trees in a conservation area
Postcode
WD3 1QJ
Received
30 Apr 2026
Validated
30 Apr 2026
Ward
Moor Park And Eastbury
Parish
Batchworth Community Council
Case officer
Show
Target decision
11 Jun 2026
Decision
Consent given on work to Tree apps
Decision date
26 May 2026
Decision level
Delegated Decision
Applicant
Show

How this decision compares

Decided in 26 days from validation, about the council's usual 28 days. Approved, as 89% of tree and landscaping works here are.

92%decided within 8 weeks
89%approved
322decided in the last year

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

Consultation & key dates

Alt. reference
PP-14897594
Planning Portal ref
PP-14897594
Statutory expiry
11 Jun 2026
Env. assessment
No
Three Rivers
Planning Authority Score
7.3/10
Good
#54 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Other decisions

Three Rivers is faster than most councils at deciding householder applications, ranking #30 out of 296. Only 24% of applications have the time limit extended, well below the 41% national average - the council usually decides on time. Householder applications are slightly more likely to be approved here (91%) 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
Three Rivers decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
89%
Overall approval rate
Above avg (87%) #145 of 296
91%
Householder approved
Above avg (90%) #184 of 296
82%
Decided in 8 weeks
Above avg (63%) #30 of 296
24%
Extended time limit
Below avg (41%) #28 of 296
85%
Minor dwellings approved
62 decided (1-9 homes)
63%
Major dwellings approved
8 decided (10+ homes)
94%
Change of use approved
17 decided
819
Total decisions
86 refused in the year to March 2026