Ray Park, Snakes Lane East, Woodford Green, IG8 7JQ Data via plota.co.uk

0135/26 - Works to TPO Tree(s) Approved

Proposal

TPO - T11 (Quercus robur) - Remove deadwood; Lift crown to 4M and remove suckers. T14 (Prunus ‘Hisakura’); T23, T169 (2x Fraxinus excelsior); T24, T127 (2x Quercus robur); T45 (Aesculus hippocastanum); T74, T75 (2x Pinus sylvestris); T90, T109, T110, T114, T115 (5x Pinus nigra); T120 (Alnus incana); T143, T156, T157, T159 (4x Prunus xyedoensis); T146, T224, T233 (3x Acer pseudoplatanus); T154, T230 (2x Aesculus hippocastanum); T229 (Acer platanoides); T270 (Fraxinus oxycarpa ‘Raywood’); T304, T361, T371 (3x Cupressus macrocarpa ‘Lutea’); T352, T356, T358, T375 (4x Cupressus macrocarpa); T368 (Salix caprea); T413 (Robinia pseudoacacia) - Remove deadwood. T16 (Prunus ‘Hisakura’) - Remove deadwood; Reduce crown by 2m. T18, T20, T22, T261, T262 (5x Prunus ‘Hisakura’); T142 (Prunus xyedoensis); T271 (Acer pseudoplatanus) - Fell leaving a 1.5m stump. T50 (Aesculus hippocastanum) - Reduce crown by 4M. T55, T56 (2x Aesculus hippocastanum) - Sever ivy. T73 (Tilia cordata) - Lift crown to 3M and remove suckers. T77 (Acer pseudoplatanus) - Remove deadwood. Remove hung-up branch. T132, T133 (2x Acer negundo ‘Variegatum’) - Lift crown to 2.5M; Remove sucker. T235 (Aesculus hippocastanum) - Remove sucker and epicormic growth up to 5M. T252 (Prunus ‘Hisakura’) - Lift crown to 3M over road; Remove suckers. T289 (Salix alba) - Move arisings and stack at base of tree. T376 (Cupressus macrocarpa) - Fell to ground level. T414 (Robinia pseudoacacia) - Remove broken branch. (summary) Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
4 Jun 2026
✓
Validated
10 Jun 2026
✓
Approved
8 Jul 2026

Approved on 8 Jul 2026 · Delegated C/Signed G. Cooper · Last checked 12 Jul 2026

Site constraints 7

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 ↗
Flood zone 3, rivers and sea
High chance: a 1 in 100 or greater annual chance from rivers, or 1 in 200 from the sea. Any development here needs a flood risk assessment. Defences are not counted.
The Environment Agency flood map for planning. Homes in zone 3 must also pass the sequential test. Surface water flooding is a separate map.
Flood map ↗
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.
Archaeological priority area
An assessment or field evaluation may be asked for before ground works.
The council or Historic England considers archaeology likely here. A desk-based assessment, and sometimes trial trenching, can be asked for with the application.
Air quality management area: Redbridge 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 ↗
Also on the record
Flood defence 9 m away (natural high ground, designed for a 1 in 75 year flood); Public transport access: PTAL 1b (very poor), TfL 2023, for the 100 m square.
Not affected
No listed building at the site · No scheduled monument at the site

Checked on 6 October 2026. Historic England, the Environment Agency, Natural England, Transport for London (public transport access levels, Powered by TfL Open Data, OGL v3.0, contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2025) 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 Redbridge - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Council
Redbridge
Application type
Works to TPO Tree(s)
Postcode
IG8 7JQ
Received
4 Jun 2026
Validated
10 Jun 2026
Ward
Bridge
Case officer
Show
Target decision
29 Jul 2026
Decision
Granted/Approved - with conditions
Decision date
8 Jul 2026
Decision level
Delegated C/Signed G. Cooper
Applicant
Show
Freehold owner
Show

How this decision compares

Decided in 28 days from validation, 5 days slower than Redbridge's median of 23 for tree and landscaping works. Approved, as 89% of tree and landscaping works here are.

100%decided within 8 weeks
89%approved
345decided in the last year

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

Consultation & key dates

Alt. reference
PP-14626092
Comments by
30 Jun 2026
Site or press notice
10 Jun 2026
Statutory expiry
1 Jul 2026
Redbridge
Planning Authority Score
4.5/10
Below average
#174 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Householder decisions

Redbridge ranks #129 out of 296 councils for householder decision speed. Redbridge 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
Redbridge decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
72%
Overall approval rate
Below avg (87%) #292 of 296
82%
Householder approved
Below avg (90%) #267 of 296
69%
Decided in 8 weeks
Above avg (63%) #129 of 296
34%
Extended time limit
Below avg (41%) #90 of 296
57%
Minor dwellings approved
152 decided (1-9 homes)
83%
Major dwellings approved
12 decided (10+ homes)
32%
Change of use approved
192 decided
1,673
Total decisions
461 refused in the year to March 2026

Freehold owner: Information produced by HM Land Registry. © Crown copyright 2026. Source: HM Land Registry, UK and overseas companies that own property in England and Wales, September 2026 release.