12 Scholes GreenScholes 0012 Data via plota.co.uk

RB2026/1082 Valid

Proposal

Application to undertake works to a tree within Scholes Conservation area 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 8 Oct 2026, 02:20

Application progress

✓

Received

30 Jul 2026

✓

Validated

5 Aug 2026

Decision

Expected by 30 Sept 2026

Under consideration

No decision has been issued yet. Plota predicted a decision around 9 Oct 2026; it is now day 65.

Documents

View the documents on the council's website ↗

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 ↗

Coal mining development high risk area

Recorded coal mining features at or near the surface. Most planning applications here need a coal mining risk assessment.

From the Mining Remediation Authority, formerly the Coal Authority. The development high risk area marks recorded coal mining features at or near the surface: mine shafts and adits, shallow workings, mine gas and former opencast sites. Most planning applications there need a coal mining risk assessment; householder applications, changes of use and some minor works are exempt. Mine entry positions come from old plans and can be out by several metres, and unrecorded workings can exist anywhere in the coalfield.

Coal mining risk assessments ↗

Scholes 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 ↗

Agricultural land, grade 3b

Not 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. Natural England's Provisional ALC map (1:250,000, 1970s) agrees.

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.

Habitat network: Network Expansion Zone

Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.

Local nature reserve about 241 m away: Scholes Coppice and Keppel's Field

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.

Also on the record

Radon affected area, class 3.

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 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

Important details

Council: Rotherham
Postcode: S61 2RD
Received: 30 Jul 2026
Validated: 5 Aug 2026
Ward: Keppel Ward
Parish: Non-Parished
Case officer: Show
Decision level: Proposed to be Delegated
Applicant: Show

Decision outlook

Day 65, past the statutory target. 100% of tree and landscaping works in Rotherham are decided within thirteen weeks, which runs to 4 Nov 2026; extensions of time are common, and the council need not decide on the day. Last seen undecided on 7 Oct 2026.

predicted

Day 659 days past the 56-day target

83%decided within 8 weeks

94%approved

66decided 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: 5 Aug 2026
Statutory expiry: 16 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