Tomkins Park And Arboretum Elmfields Gate Winslow Buckinghamshire Data via plota.co.uk

Decided 25/00332/ATP
Appeal
Dismissed · 22 Apr 2026 · Written Representations · Inspectorate case 6004425 ↗
Date received
around 5 Feb 2025
Date validated
5 Feb 2025

Description

To more fully illustrate the situation in applications 24/03032/ATP and 24/03387/ATP which were both refused, a dimensioned sketch of the tree clusters in question has been appended. Taking note of the refusal comments, this is a further request to fell the trees. The ?CLUSTERS 1 to 3, TREE ARRANGEMENT? sketch, shows how close together these trees were planted. Heights of trees 1 & 2 in Cluster 1 are approximately 12 metres and tree 3, 11 metres. Leylandii, if planted close together, are unmanaged, and left to grow tall, will eventually start to compete with each other for water and light. If they struggle to get enough water from the soil, they will not be able to supply water to all their foliage, so they tend to shed their lower foliage in favour of the new fresh growth, therefore making them bare at the bottom. With the density of tree planting and poor tree management prior to the creation of the Arboretum, most of the available light and growth of these Leylandii was on our garden side. This has produced the extensive 3 metres of overhang (hardly minimal), of branches from trees 2 & 3 ? see photograph ?Cluster 1 Trees Overhang seen from Garden?. Cluster 2 has a large overhang of branches from trees 3, 4 & 5 into our garden of a considerable 2 metres ? see photograph ?Cluster 2 Trees Overhang seen from Garden?, and Cluster 3 has an overhang of branches from trees 2 & 3 into our garden of a considerable 1.8 metres ? see photograph ?Cluster 3 Trees Overhang seen from Garden?. The overhangs suggest that the trees were capable of an individual spread of between 5 and 8 metres, which was obviously impossible when they have been planted less than 1 to 2 metres apart. This has left all three clusters of trees unbalanced, which is not the best arboricultural practice. The aesthetically reduced visual amenity of the tree caused by the reduced photosynthetic material, has certainly been detrimental to the trees health, with dead and broken branches near to f... Data via plota.co.uk

Last checked

Site constraints 5

Also on the record
Conservation area about 33 m away: Winslow; National infrastructure project about 668 m away: East West Rail - Bedford to Cambridge and Western improvements, at pre-application; Inside the Winslow built-up area; Priority habitat about 35 m away: Deciduous woodland; Natural England's Provisional ALC map (1:250,000, 1970s) had this area as grade 3, but it predates the buildings here and the current map does not class it as farmland.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3 · Not green belt · No scheduled monument at the site

Checked on 17 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 Planning Inspectorate 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 Buckinghamshire - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service
Buckinghamshire
Planning Authority Score
1.3/10
Poor
#284 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Householder decisions

Buckinghamshire is one of the slowest councils in England for householder decisions, ranking #280 out of 296. 55% of applications have the time limit extended, above the 41% national average. Householder applications are slightly less likely to be approved here (86%) than the national average (90%).

Among the slowest councils in England
for householder decisions
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Buckinghamshire decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
84%
Overall approval rate
Below avg (87%) #217 of 296
86%
Householder approved
Below avg (90%) #241 of 296
34%
Decided in 8 weeks
Below avg (63%) #280 of 296
55%
Extended time limit
Above avg (41%) #248 of 296
76%
Minor dwellings approved
491 decided (1-9 homes)
82%
Major dwellings approved
71 decided (10+ homes)
82%
Change of use approved
131 decided
4,446
Total decisions
690 refused in the year to March 2026