Land to the rear of 235 Archway Road London N6 5BS Data via plota.co.uk

HGY/2026/1948 - Works to trees in Conservation Area Refused

Proposal

I seek consent to remove one mature cherry tree situated on a narrow stretch of land to the rear of a Garage on Southwood Avenue. The tree has reached a size that is no longer appropriate for its location and is causing ongoing damage to surrounding structures and the safe use of the property. The root system has caused damage to the boundary wall adjoining 235 Archway Road. This wall is not merely a boundary feature but also functions as a retaining wall supporting a significant volume of soil. The continued expansion of the root system is placing increasing pressure on the wall, resulting in structural deterioration and creating concern that further damage will occur if the tree is retained. In addition to the damage caused by its roots, the tree has developed a pronounced lean towards the neighbouring property at 235 Archway Road. The lean is such that the neighbouring owners have altered the alignment of their boundary fence to accommodate the tree trunk. This demonstrates the extent to which the tree has outgrown its location and illustrates the impact it is having on neighbouring land. The root system has also produced numerous exposed surface roots extending across the garden. These roots create uneven ground, impede safe access to parts of the property, and make routine maintenance increasingly difficult. The issues described above are inherent to the tree's size, maturity and root development rather than being temporary or capable of being resolved through routine pruning. Crown reduction or other pruning operations would not address the structural damage being caused below ground or the continuing pressure exerted on the retaining wall by the expanding root system. For these reasons, removal of the tree is considered to be the most appropriate long-term solution to prevent further structural damage, reduce the risk of future failure of the retaining wall, improve safe access within the property, and avoid continued encroachment towards the neighbouring property. The proposal relates to a single tree only. If the Council considers replacement planting appropriate, I would be willing to plant a smaller ornamental tree in a more suitable location within the garden, thereby maintaining the contribution to local amenity while avoiding a recurrence of the existing problems. Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
around 10 Jul 2026
✗
Refused
18 Aug 2026
Appeal
Not lodged

Refused on 18 Aug 2026 · Delegated Decision · Last checked 3 Sept 2026

Site constraints 8

Highgate 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 ↗
Local nature reserve about 65 m away: Parkland Walk
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.
Air quality management area: Haringey 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 ↗
Habitat network: Network Enhancement Zone 2
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
Also on the record
2 listed buildings within 150 m of the postcode pin; Inside the Haringey built-up area; Public transport access: PTAL 4 (good), TfL 2023, for the 100 m square; Metropolitan Open Land about 66 m away.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3 · Not green belt · No scheduled monument at the site

Checked on 2 November 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, 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 Haringey - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Council
Haringey
Application type
Works to trees in Conservation Area
Postcode
N6 5BS
Received
around 10 Jul 2026
Validated
10 Jul 2026
Ward
Highgate
Case officer
Show
Target decision
21 Aug 2026
Decision
Object
Decision date
18 Aug 2026
Decision level
Delegated Decision
Applicant
Show

How this decision compares

Decided in 39 days from validation, 12 days slower than Haringey's median of 27 for tree works. Refused, as 2% of tree works here are.

79%decided within 8 weeks
98%approved
357decided in the last year

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

Public comments

6comments received
6 objecting

100% object · above the UK average of 74%

Last counted 3 Sept 2026

Read the comments on the council site ↗

Haringey
Planning Authority Score
4/10
Below average
#192 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Other decisions

Haringey is slower than most councils at deciding householder applications, ranking #209 out of 296. Householder applications are slightly more likely to be approved here (91%) than the national average (90%).

Slower than most councils
for householder decisions
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Haringey decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
85%
Overall approval rate
Below avg (87%) #206 of 296
91%
Householder approved
Above avg (90%) #174 of 296
55%
Decided in 8 weeks
Below avg (63%) #209 of 296
40%
Extended time limit
Below avg (41%) #151 of 296
83%
Minor dwellings approved
279 decided (1-9 homes)
100%
Major dwellings approved
8 decided (10+ homes)
46%
Change of use approved
28 decided
1,469
Total decisions
217 refused in the year to March 2026