Overbury Woodside Walk Northwood HA6 3ET Data via plota.co.uk

25/2157/TPO - Works to trees covered by a Tree Pres O Refused

Proposal

G1 - Holly - Self-seeded trees that are growing close to the boundary with Holly Manor (see photograph 1) Works: Remove T1 - Oak x 1 - (third-party) Tree one is an oak tree that is significantly encroaching into the curtilage of Overbury, it was pruned back several years ago but has now regrown an extent beyond its size pre-pruning; it is now encroaching significantly into the curtilage of Overbury and growing close to the northern elevation of the dwelling-house (see photographs 2 & 3) Works: To reduce significantly encroaching growth by 2m on height and width G2 - Western red cedars (third-party) These are fast-maturing trees that are now encroaching unacceptably into the curtilage of Overbury, the trees have not been pruned since they were planted ( see photograph 4) Works: Reduce the encroaching lateral branches to the property boundary line T2 - Ash x 1 (third-party) This is a self-seeded ash tree that has outgrown a restricted location is now encroaching into the curtilage of Overbury (see photograph 5) Works: Reduce encroaching growth by 2m on height and width T3 - Yew x 1 (third-party) A now very large and outgrown tree that is encroaching significantly into the curtilage of Overbury (see photograph 6) Works: Reduce encroaching lateral branches to the boundary line T4 - Yew x 1 (boundary line tree) (see photographs 7 & 8) Works: reduce side above the rear garden of Overbury by 2.5m on spread and 1 m on height H1 - Mixed deciduous hedge (see photograph 10) Works: Cut back the northern side lateral growth to approximately 1m from boundary line T5 - Oak x 1 ? shown as T1 on TPO 362 (see photographs 11, 12 & 13) Works: Reduce those lateral branches on the west and east sides by approximately 2.5m and those on the south and north sides by 2m, crown clean to include removing any damaged branches and deadwood > 300 mm in length and 20 mm in diameter REASONS FOR ALL THE ABOVE WORKS CAN BE FOUND IN THE ATTACHED PLAN, PHOTOS, E... Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
10 Dec 2025
✓
Validated
23 Dec 2025
✗
Refused
26 Jan 2026
Appeal
Not lodged

Refused on 26 Jan 2026 · Delegated Decision · Last checked 3 Oct 2026

Site constraints 5

Local nature reserve about 33 m away: Oxhey Woods
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.
Habitat network: Other Priority Habitats - NEZ
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
Also on the record
Inside the Moor Park built-up area; Green belt about 28 m away: London; Priority habitat about 19 m away: Deciduous woodland.
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 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.

Sales history 1

Last sold for £1,725,000 in January 2019. Detached house, freehold.

31 January 2019£1,725,000

Sale prices from HM Land Registry's price paid record, matched to this application by its address.

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 covered by a Tree Pres O
Postcode
HA6 3ET
Received
10 Dec 2025
Validated
23 Dec 2025
Ward
Moor Park And Eastbury
Parish
Batchworth Community Council
Case officer
Show
Target decision
17 Feb 2026
Decision
Refusal of work to Tree applications
Decision date
26 Jan 2026
Decision level
Delegated Decision
Applicant
Show

How this decision compares

Decided in 34 days from validation, 6 days slower than Three Rivers's median of 28 for tree and landscaping works. Refused, as 11% 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 →

Public comments

No public comments yet.

Last counted 3 Oct 2026

Read the comments on the council site ↗

Consultation & key dates

Alt. reference
PP-14552347
Planning Portal ref
PP-14552347
Statutory expiry
17 Feb 2026
Env. assessment
No
Three Rivers
Planning Authority Score
7.3/10
Good
#54 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Householder 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

Sale prices: Contains HM Land Registry data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. This data is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.