Understanding planning · 13 min read
Planning application documents: what to read first
Understand planning application documents, officer reports and decision notices. Use a reading checklist, document table and worked example to inspect a case.
Application overview
T15 - Cypress - Remove
Proposal details
- Reference
- R26/0302
- Ward
- Eastlands
- Parish
- Unparished
- UPRN
- 100071237321
Sign in to view all collected council fields and recorded changes.
Sign in to view collected detailsDocuments 4 of 4
| Document | Published | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 20260321_101323.jpgPhotographs | 25 Mar 2026 | View |
| 20260321_101326.jpgPhotographs | 25 Mar 2026 | View |
| Application_for_Tree_Works_-_T15.pdfApplication Form | 25 Mar 2026 | View |
| Attachment to Email: email_msg_35911.pdfDecision Notice | 15 May 2026 | View |
Documents open on the council website. Browse council documents if a link has changed.
Application timeline
Council milestones and published deadlines. A deadline passing does not confirm a decision.
Decision due date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council source
Decision & conditions
Attachment to Email: email_msg_35911.pdfPlanning conditions
- T15 Cypress (TPO no.186) - Refusal to grant permission to remove. Tree and site context The tree is a mature Cypress. It is located towards the end of the garden and approximately 60 metres to the south east of the property. It is located immediately adjacent to the access road to the properties. Immediately to the north east is another Cypress (T14) of similar dimensions and collectively form a gateway feature each tree located either side of the garden gate. It has a bifurcated stem. The stem to the north west is 15 metres in height. The stem to the south east is 12 metres in height. This stem appears to have been historically pruned to a lower height. The two trees serve as an attractive an established feature within the context of the gardens to the properties. T15 displays good vitality and good form with no obvious major defects visible. There is a good union between to 2 co-dominant stems at the point of bifurcation. Reasons stated to support the application to remove the tree The application states that the tree has infestation in lower trunk weakening the structure. Tree removal recommended for safety. Possibility to spread to adjacent tree. Whilst there is some flaking/cracked bark on the south eastern stem, wood boring insects from 1 to 2 metres (there are also 3 woodpecker holes) after testing with a sounding hammer there is no evidence that the structural integrity of that stem has been compromised via internal decayed wood. No evidence or diagnostic information was provided to support the application in relation to the structural integrity of the stem. Conclusion On the basis of the evidence put forward and following an inspection of the subject Cypress tree it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to justify its removal. Therefore, the application to remove the tree is refused.
