Buttonwood Joan LaneHooton Levitt 0018 Data via plota.co.uk

RB2026/0983 Approved

Proposal

Application to undertake works to trees protected by RMBC TPO 18 (1994) Data via plota.co.uk

Track application Save this application and get an email when its status or decision changes. Alerts nearby Get email alerts for new planning applications near this address.

View original council record ↗Last checked 22 Sept 2026, 16:21

Application progress

✓

Received

10 Jul 2026

✓

Approved

22 Sept 2026

Approved on 22 Sept 2026 · Proposed to be Delegated · Last checked 22 Sept 2026

Documents 1

Plans & drawings 1

PDF Detail Drawing document · 10 Jul 2026 View ↗

All documents on the council site ↗

Site constraints 7

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 ↗

Public footpath about 12 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.

National infrastructure project: Knottingley Power Project

The site is inside the project boundary. Generating station, decided. The project page says whether consent was granted.

Nationally significant infrastructure projects (power stations, electricity lines, pipelines, major roads and railways, harbours, airports and reservoirs) are consented by a Secretary of State under the Planning Act 2008, after an examination by the Planning Inspectorate, rather than by the council. The boundary is the one the Inspectorate consults on and can change as the scheme does. Projects are shown within 2 km of the site.

Planning Inspectorate project page ↗

Agricultural land, grade 3b, surveyed

Not best and most versatile land (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Source: Natural England's post-1988 ALC field survey (Leeds). Natural England's Provisional ALC map (1:250,000, 1970s) had this area as grade 2; the survey is the definitive reading.

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.

Survey report ↗

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; Coalfield, development low risk area.

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 Mining Remediation Authority, the Planning Inspectorate, 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 Rotherham - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Nearby new applications

8 Oct 2026

2 Chestnut Walk Hooton Levitt 0002

Application to undertake works to trees protected by RMBC TPO 1 (1952)

RB2026/1437

2 Oct 2026

Layden Court Nursing Home All Hallows Drive Maltby

Application to determine whether Prior Notification is required for the installa...

RB2026/1402

Important details

Council: Rotherham
Received: 10 Jul 2026
Validated: 10 Jul 2026
Ward: Hellaby & Maltby West Ward
Parish: Hooton Levitt
Case officer: Show
Decision: GRANTED CONDITIONALLY
Decision date: 22 Sept 2026
Decision level: Proposed to be Delegated
Applicant: Show
Agent: Thompson Tree Services Ltd

How this decision compares

Decided in 74 days from validation, 31 days slower than Rotherham's median of 43 for tree and landscaping works. Approved, as 94% of tree and landscaping works here are.

This one74d

Council43d

UK36d

82%decided within 8 weeks

94%approved

69decided in the last year

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

Consultation & key dates

Consultation: 17 Jul 2026
Comments by: 7 Aug 2026
Statutory expiry: 4 Sept 2026

Rotherham

Planning Authority Score

4.7/10

Below average

#167 of 296 councils

Relevant to this application:

Householder decisions

Rotherham ranks #107 out of 296 councils for householder decision speed. Rotherham is also one of the strictest councils - it refuses more householder applications than almost any other, with only 71% approved vs 90% nationally.

One of the strictest councils

only 71% approved vs 90% nationally

These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance

Rotherham decision statistics

Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026

79%

Overall approval rate

Below avg (87%) #266 of 296

71%

Householder approved

Below avg (90%) #295 of 296

72%

Decided in 8 weeks

Above avg (63%) #107 of 296

32%

Extended time limit

Below avg (41%) #68 of 296

78%

Minor dwellings approved

63 decided (1-9 homes)

100%

Major dwellings approved

20 decided (10+ homes)

83%

Change of use approved

58 decided

750

Total decisions

156 refused in the year to March 2026