Planning application
PA26/2636
26 Onslow Avenue Richmond TW10 6QB
Proposal
See attached PDF showing satellite view of houses number 20 to 30 on Onslow Avenue. The sycamore tree in the rear garden of number 26 is marked by a red dotted circle on the plan. It is proposed to reduce the height and spread of the tree to growth points approximately 2m above previous pruning. This is to maintain a manageable overall height of 4.5m and spread of 4m of the tree to avoid overhang to neighbouring properties and reduce any potential risk of root ingress into drains.
As published by the council, reference PA26/2636
Timeline
Dates from the published record
-
29 Jul 2026
Received by Richmond upon Thames
-
30 Jul 2026
Added to PlanIndex
-
Decision
Awaiting decision
The statutory target is eight weeks for most applications and thirteen for major development. Extensions of time are common.
What happens while it is decided
The process from here
This application is with Richmond upon Thames for determination. The council publicises it, consults neighbours and technical bodies where required, and weighs the responses against local and national planning policy.
The statutory target is eight weeks for most applications and thirteen for major development, though extensions of time are common. Comments carry most weight while the case is undecided, so check the council portal for the deadline if you want to respond.
About trees applications
How this application type works
Tree applications cover work to protected trees: those under a tree preservation order need consent for pruning or felling, and trees in a conservation area need six weeks written notice before work starts. The council assesses the amenity value of the tree and can refuse consent, approve it with conditions, or in conservation areas make a preservation order in response.
Nearby applications
Within 500 metres
-
05/3438/HOT Refused
53 Mount Ararat Road Richmond Richmond Upon Thames TW10 6PL
Erection of a tea pavilion
-
06/0014/HOT Granted
73 The Vineyard Richmond Richmond Upon Thames TW10 6AS
Loft extension with dormer to rear and rooflights to front.
-
PA26/1583 Granted
75, The Vineyard, Richmond, TW10 6AS
Alterations to rear elevation, reduce size of boiler room at the rear, replacement of all windows and rooflights to match the existing & reduce size of roof light at the front.
-
PA26/2279 Awaiting decision
51, The Vineyard, Richmond, TW10 6AS
Loft conversion with two rear dormers and 3 front pitch rooflights. Replace rear outrigger rooflight with a sun tunnel. Re-point brick to match existing.
-
22/1355/DD01 Granted
5 Onslow Avenue Richmond TW10 6QB
Details pursuant to condition U0130149 - Construction Management Plan, and U0130153 - Tree Protection Report, of planning permission 22/1355/HOT.
-
21/2095/HOT Granted
47 The Vineyard Richmond TW10 6AS
Demolition of outbuildings and erection of side/front infill extension. Single storey side/rear extension.
Other trees applications
In Richmond upon Thames
-
PA26/2633 Awaiting decision
Maisonette First And Second Floor 197 Castelnau Barnes London SW13 9ER
T1 & T2 – Lime (Tilia spp.) Proposed Works: Fell both Lime trees to ground level by sectional dismantling. Arboricultural Justification The two Lime trees are small, previously pollarded specimens that are in poor structural condition and no longer represent suitable trees for retention. Inspection identified extensive decay at the base of both stems together with significant decay associated with the historic pollard heads, indicating progressive structural deterioration. The trees exhibit poor vitality and the combination of basal decay and decayed pollard unions has substantially compromised their long-term structural integrity. The trees are also unsuitably located within a confined area where there is insufficient space for continued development. Their proximity to surrounding structures and the restricted growing environment has resulted in an ongoing conflict between the trees and their surroundings, making long-term retention impractical. Given the advanced stage of decay affecting both the basal stem and crown, together with their limited remaining safe life expectancy, continued cyclical pruning would not provide a sustainable management solution and would only prolong the retention of structurally compromised trees. The proposed removal represents the most appropriate long-term arboricultural solution, eliminating the foreseeable risk associated with progressive structural failure whilst allowing the opportunity for replacement planting with species better suited to the available growing space. The works are considered reasonable, proportionate and in accordance with the principles of good arboricultural management and BS3998:2010 – Tree Work – Recommendations.
-
PA26/2647 Granted
The Manor House, Ham Street, Ham, Richmond, TW10 7HA
5 DAY DANGEROUS TREE NOTICE - removal of a dead tree T72 on the tree survey
-
PA26/2617 Awaiting decision
51 Kew Green Kew Richmond TW9 3AA
Quercus ilex in front garden. Requesting crown reduction back to previous pruning cuts visible from 2015. Reduce in height by 2-3m, reduce laterals by 1-2m & shape. Nothing bigger than 5cm diameter to be cut as advised by consulted tree surgeon (Bartlett's), who would be employed to undertake the works. Reasons for work- concern re damage to tree from Coaches (to Kew Gardens) reduction would prevent interference from large vehicles whilst maintaining shape of crown.
-
PA26/2627 Awaiting decision
29 Netherton Road Twickenham TW1 1LZ
Purple plum (T1) – Fell to ground level. Reason: Tree is dead. Yew (T2) – Fell to ground level. Reason: Tree is too large for the site and is actively suppressing the adjacent Pear tree. Pear (T3) – Prune to remove dead wood. Reason: To remove deadwood hazards and promote healthy growth. Elder (T4) – Crown reduction by up to 1.5–2 meters. Reason: Tree is too large for the site location.
-
PA26/2625 Awaiting decision
23, Taggs Yard, Woodlands Road, London, SW13 0JZ
Silver Birch in Driveway, 23 Woodlands Road, london SW13 0JZ Having consulted two tree surgeons (Mark Spriggs and Jo Buckingham ( HTS Hardy Tree Surgeons)) I am applying for permission to remove the silver birch in the driveway, as well as the nearby holly tree. The Silver Birch (which was already mature when we purchased the property in 2000)., is approaching end of life, lost its crown in a storm approx 15 years ago and has shed additional limbs, one of which is curently hanging, held in place by dead climbing rose. The two leaders and side limbs are in danger of falling due to further decay evident in the trunk, and present a danger to the neighbour's garden (where young children play) as well as to users of the driveway, the propoerty's only access. Consideration has been given to weight reduction, but given the tree age and trunk condition this is not considered appropriate. We would be happy to leave the stump (and if desired some of the trunk left standing) in place so it can decay naturally over time to provide further habitat. Photographs of the tree, trunk and hanging branch are provided. The trees within the driveway are all self-seeded and have grown naturally, with consequent integrity. We do not think the narrow verge available, given also the lack of natural watering and need to keep the driveway trimmed back for access, is suitable for planting large trees, and if re-planting is required we would prefer to use suitable hedge species rather than replace like for like. Within the wider context of the garden we have in the past 20 years planted silver birch (two survive) and various cherries, gages and other trees. We have two large trees subject to TPO, (oak and sycamore) and do not believe it would be suitable to plant additional large trees - the garden already being well provided with trees and shrubs which support considerable wildlife. While work is undertaken on the birch we would also like to deal with the holly, which is in poor condition - one of the twin trunks is dead, while the other only supports a few side branches in poor condition. We woudl like permission to reduce this to a short standing trunk, to see if thereby we can encourage fresh growth from the base as part of the driveway hedge.