Works to trees protected by a TPO. T2) Horse Chestnut: Reduce lowest limb over car parking bays by up to 2 metres; thin overall crown by 20% to provide dappled light (secondary regrowth, up to 50mm diameter only); remove any dead and defective branchwood. T3 & T4) 2 x Lime trees by front gate: Reduce height by up to 3 metres; reduce remaining crown by up to 1.5 metres to balance; remove any dead and defective branchwood. T5 & T6) 2 x Lime trees over Hornsey Lane and Crouch End Hill junction: Reduce lateral spread over road by up 2.5 metres; remove any dead and dangerous branchwood. T7) Horse Chestnut over Crouch End Hill: Crown lift to 4 metres to provide clearance for high sided vehicles; Reduce lateral spread away from road by up to 2.5 metres. T8) Mature Oak by house: Overall crown reduction up to 2 metres, within previous, most recent reduction points; reduce away from house by up to 2.5 metres to provide clearance; remove any dead and defective branchwood. (Works to G1 Row of Leyland Cypress along Hornsey Lane will be considered separately under Section 211 Notice reference HGY/2025/2418, as these trees are not protected by a TPO but are located within a Conservation Area)
G1) Row of Leyland Cypress along Hornsey Lane: Reduce height by up to 3 metres to provide uniform row; trim sides by up to 1 metre where necessary to balance and provide clearance for pedestrians. (All other works will be considered separately under tree works application reference HGY/2025/2414, as T2 and T7 Horse Chestnuts, T3, T4, T5 and T6 Limes and T8 Oak are all protected by TPOs)
Works to tree protected by a TPO. Rear Garden: Right hand boundary: T1: Mature Sycamore: Approximately 15.00m: Reduce crown by approximately 1.50m-2.25m all round, back to previous and most recent reduction points. Thin crown density throughout by 20%. Remove dead wood. General maintenance. (Works to T2: Mature Multi-stemmed Bay will be considered separately under Section 211 Notice ref. HGY/2025/0986, as the tree is in a Conservation Area but not protected by a TPO)
Rear Garden: Right hand boundary: T2: Mature Multi-stemmed Bay: Approximately 5.50m: Reduce the whole crown by approximately 1.00m-1.50m all round to form compact shape. Control encroachment/General maintenance. (Works to T1: Mature Sycamore will be considered separately under application ref. HGY/2025/0974, as the tree is in a Conservation Area and is also protected by a TPO)
Works to tree protected by a TPO. T1 Beech - Fell and treat stump with eco plugs. (Works to T2 Beech will be considered separately under application reference HGY/2024/2104, as this tree is not protected by a TPO, but is located within a Conservation Area) Our Ref: 274591 Statement of Reasons for Tree Preservation Order Application to fell and treat Beech tree (T1) and Beech tree (T2) at: 137 Hornsey Lane, N6 5NH TPO Ref: TPO/2014/0517 1. The above tree works are proposed as a remedy to the differential foundation movement at the insured property and to ensure the long-term stability of the building. 2. The above tree works are proposed to limit the extent and need for expensive and disruptive engineering repair works at the insured property. In this instance the estimated repair costs are likely to vary between £25,000 and £450,000, depending upon whether the tree/s can be removed or must remain. 3. The above tree works are proposed to limit the extent and need for costly CO2e emissions relating to alternative engineering repair works at the insured property. A typical underpinning scheme can include a carbon cost of more than 6000 kg CO2e and soil stabilisation or root barriers more than 4000 kg CO2e. A typical tree might capture between 15-40kg CO2e per annum and would therefore take centuries to mitigate the cost in CO2e on any alternative. We also confirm that the applicant has included this scheme and application in its tree planting and carbon capture off-set scheme for trees causing subsidence to low rise buildings which has already seen some 11,000 trees planted and additionally 220 tonnes of carbon captured. 4. The above tree works are proposed to limit the duration of any claim period and therefore allow the landowner their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. 5. It is the case that an alternative to felling such as pruning or significant ‘pollarding’ of the tree would not provide a reliable or sustainable remedy to the subsidence in this case. We do not consider that any other potential means of mitigation, including root barriers, would be effective or appropriate in the circumstances. 6. We are satisfied that the evidence obtained following completion of our Arboricultural Implication Assessment report completed 31/03/2023, clearly links T1 and T2 Beech as the cause of damage to the risk address 7. Insurers understanding the requirement to offer replacement planting in the event consent to fell is granted. 8. Should you wish to visit the address or to discuss any technical matters your technical liaison in this instance is Henry Collings who can be contacted on 07740 737412. We stress we would be happy to meet or to have any discussion if this allows the Council to fully understand our application and the issues surrounding this. Your technical liaison can also handle any technical information or clarification regarding technical matters. Olly Leonard Mitigation Co-Ordinator PRI Insurance Services
Our Ref: 284614 Haringey Council London Borough Planning Department Attention: Dear Sir/Madam Re: Tree Related Subsidence at – 139 Hornsey Lane, London, N6 5NH Notice under s.211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of intent to fell and treat stump with eco plugs (broadleaved) to one Oak (Holm) tree at 139 Hornsey Lane, London, N6 5NH We write in reference to our site survey of 31/03/2023 and confirm that we are the arboriculturists appointed on behalf of property insurers of the above risk address. It is the view of chartered engineers appointed to investigate damage that the property has suffered differential movement and subsequent damage consistent with tree related clay shrinkage subsidence. Further to discussions with the Structural Engineer who is assessing the required remedial works for the property, we are of the opinion that it is preferable to remove the implicated trees. This is because retaining the trees and implementing an engineered solution cannot happen without having serious effect on their root systems which are influencing the structure of the risk address. This submission consists of a formal notification under Conservation Area Regulations of our intention to remove the trees as mentioned above which we believe are not protected under any Tree Preservation Order. Whilst insurers have no requirement to submit prescribed levels of supporting evidence in relation to a Conservation Area notification, we are enclosing copies of relevant technical reports, in the attached Appendices, as itemised below: 1. A site plan, survey tables and photographs which locates vegetation that is the subject of this notification. 2. Level monitoring 3. Engineers Reports 4. Site investigation report 1. Damage to the insured’s property has resulted from tree related subsidence: • History and timing of damage indicates it is tree root induced movement • Pattern of damage relative to the trees and mechanism of movement implicates the itemised tree species Please accept this letter as our formal notification to undertake the works detailed below: Tree Number (as per PRI plan) Common name Specification T3 Oak (Holm) Fell and treat stump with eco plugs (broadleaved)
T2 Beech - Fell and treat stump with eco plugs. (Works to T1 Beech will be considered separately under application reference HGY/2024/2115, as this tree is also protected by a TPO, as well as located within a Conservation Area) Our Ref: 274591 Statement of Reasons for Tree Preservation Order Application to fell and treat Beech tree (T1) and Beech tree (T2) at: 137 Hornsey Lane, N6 5NH TPO Ref: TPO/2014/0517 1. The above tree works are proposed as a remedy to the differential foundation movement at the insured property and to ensure the long-term stability of the building. 2. The above tree works are proposed to limit the extent and need for expensive and disruptive engineering repair works at the insured property. In this instance the estimated repair costs are likely to vary between £25,000 and £450,000, depending upon whether the tree/s can be removed or must remain. 3. The above tree works are proposed to limit the extent and need for costly CO2e emissions relating to alternative engineering repair works at the insured property. A typical underpinning scheme can include a carbon cost of more than 6000 kg CO2e and soil stabilisation or root barriers more than 4000 kg CO2e. A typical tree might capture between 15-40kg CO2e per annum and would therefore take centuries to mitigate the cost in CO2e on any alternative. We also confirm that the applicant has included this scheme and application in its tree planting and carbon capture off-set scheme for trees causing subsidence to low rise buildings which has already seen some 11,000 trees planted and additionally 220 tonnes of carbon captured. 4. The above tree works are proposed to limit the duration of any claim period and therefore allow the landowner their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. 5. It is the case that an alternative to felling such as pruning or significant ‘pollarding’ of the tree would not provide a reliable or sustainable remedy to the subsidence in this case. We do not consider that any other potential means of mitigation, including root barriers, would be effective or appropriate in the circumstances. 6. We are satisfied that the evidence obtained following completion of our Arboricultural Implication Assessment report completed 31/03/2023, clearly links T1 and T2 Beech as the cause of damage to the risk address 7. Insurers understanding the requirement to offer replacement planting in the event consent to fell is granted. 8. Should you wish to visit the address or to discuss any technical matters your technical liaison in this instance is Henry Collings who can be contacted on 07740 737412. We stress we would be happy to meet or to have any discussion if this allows the Council to fully understand our application and the issues surrounding this. Your technical liaison can also handle any technical information or clarification regarding technical matters. Olly Leonard Mitigation Co-Ordinator PRI Insurance Services
**None of the listed works require notice or permission** T028 - Cherry, plum - Reduce height by 2.5m to reduce weight of leaning tree. T027 - Cotoneaster - Lift to 4m over footpath. T016 - Laurel - Trim height and sides and cut back from property by 1m. T003 - Ash Tree - Dead Tree - Fell to ground level. T019 - Italian Cypress - Fell to ground level due to tree pushing retaining wall out of position and cracks have appeared. (Works to T029 - Oak Tree do not require notice or permission)
Flat 14 125 Hornsey Lane Hornsey London N6 5NH · premises record
Front Garden: North eastern boundary with No.143: T1: Mature Cherry: Approximately 13.00m: Fell to ground level. Tree is in decline, suffering crown dieback and main stem almost totally dead. T2: Thuja: Approximately 8.00m: Fell to ground level. Dying tree.
Works to trees protected by a TPO: T1) Lime tree on boundary with Hornsey Lane: Reduce overall crown by up to 2.5 metres. T2) Lime tree on boundary with Hornsey Lane: Reduce overall crown by up to 2.5 metres. T3) Horse Chestnut at front of property: Reduce overall crown by up to 2.5 metres. T4) Large Oak tree at side of property: Reduce overall crown by up to 2.5 metres. All of these trees have been previously reduced to this specification. All pruning cuts will be made strictly to BS3998 and within existing reduction framework.
Works to trees protected by a TPO. T2) Horse Chestnut: Reduce lowest limb over car parking bays by up to 2 metres; thin overall crown by 20% to provide dappled light (secondary regrowth, up to 50mm diameter only); remove any dead and defective branchwood. T3 & T4) 2 x Lime trees by front gate: Reduce height by up to 3 metres; reduce remaining crown by up to 1.5 metres to balance; remove any dead and defective branchwood. T5 & T6) 2 x Lime trees over Hornsey Lane and Crouch End Hill junction: Reduce lateral spread over road by up 2.5 metres; remove any dead and dangerous branchwood. T7) Horse Chestnut over Crouch End Hill: Crown lift to 4 metres to provide clearance for high sided vehicles; Reduce lateral spread away from road by up to 2.5 metres. T8) Mature Oak by house: Overall crown reduction up to 2 metres, within previous, most recent reduction points; reduce away from house by up to 2.5 metres to provide clearance; remove any dead and defective branchwood. (Works to G1 Row of Leyland Cypress along Hornsey Lane will be considered separately under Section 211 Notice reference HGY/2025/2418, as these trees are not protected by a TPO but are located within a Conservation Area)
G1) Row of Leyland Cypress along Hornsey Lane: Reduce height by up to 3 metres to provide uniform row; trim sides by up to 1 metre where necessary to balance and provide clearance for pedestrians. (All other works will be considered separately under tree works application reference HGY/2025/2414, as T2 and T7 Horse Chestnuts, T3, T4, T5 and T6 Limes and T8 Oak are all protected by TPOs)
Works to tree protected by a TPO. Rear Garden: Right hand boundary: T1: Mature Sycamore: Approximately 15.00m: Reduce crown by approximately 1.50m-2.25m all round, back to previous and most recent reduction points. Thin crown density throughout by 20%. Remove dead wood. General maintenance. (Works to T2: Mature Multi-stemmed Bay will be considered separately under Section 211 Notice ref. HGY/2025/0986, as the tree is in a Conservation Area but not protected by a TPO)
Rear Garden: Right hand boundary: T2: Mature Multi-stemmed Bay: Approximately 5.50m: Reduce the whole crown by approximately 1.00m-1.50m all round to form compact shape. Control encroachment/General maintenance. (Works to T1: Mature Sycamore will be considered separately under application ref. HGY/2025/0974, as the tree is in a Conservation Area and is also protected by a TPO)
Works to tree protected by a TPO. T1 Beech - Fell and treat stump with eco plugs. (Works to T2 Beech will be considered separately under application reference HGY/2024/2104, as this tree is not protected by a TPO, but is located within a Conservation Area) Our Ref: 274591 Statement of Reasons for Tree Preservation Order Application to fell and treat Beech tree (T1) and Beech tree (T2) at: 137 Hornsey Lane, N6 5NH TPO Ref: TPO/2014/0517 1. The above tree works are proposed as a remedy to the differential foundation movement at the insured property and to ensure the long-term stability of the building. 2. The above tree works are proposed to limit the extent and need for expensive and disruptive engineering repair works at the insured property. In this instance the estimated repair costs are likely to vary between £25,000 and £450,000, depending upon whether the tree/s can be removed or must remain. 3. The above tree works are proposed to limit the extent and need for costly CO2e emissions relating to alternative engineering repair works at the insured property. A typical underpinning scheme can include a carbon cost of more than 6000 kg CO2e and soil stabilisation or root barriers more than 4000 kg CO2e. A typical tree might capture between 15-40kg CO2e per annum and would therefore take centuries to mitigate the cost in CO2e on any alternative. We also confirm that the applicant has included this scheme and application in its tree planting and carbon capture off-set scheme for trees causing subsidence to low rise buildings which has already seen some 11,000 trees planted and additionally 220 tonnes of carbon captured. 4. The above tree works are proposed to limit the duration of any claim period and therefore allow the landowner their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. 5. It is the case that an alternative to felling such as pruning or significant ‘pollarding’ of the tree would not provide a reliable or sustainable remedy to the subsidence in this case. We do not consider that any other potential means of mitigation, including root barriers, would be effective or appropriate in the circumstances. 6. We are satisfied that the evidence obtained following completion of our Arboricultural Implication Assessment report completed 31/03/2023, clearly links T1 and T2 Beech as the cause of damage to the risk address 7. Insurers understanding the requirement to offer replacement planting in the event consent to fell is granted. 8. Should you wish to visit the address or to discuss any technical matters your technical liaison in this instance is Henry Collings who can be contacted on 07740 737412. We stress we would be happy to meet or to have any discussion if this allows the Council to fully understand our application and the issues surrounding this. Your technical liaison can also handle any technical information or clarification regarding technical matters. Olly Leonard Mitigation Co-Ordinator PRI Insurance Services
Our Ref: 284614 Haringey Council London Borough Planning Department Attention: Dear Sir/Madam Re: Tree Related Subsidence at – 139 Hornsey Lane, London, N6 5NH Notice under s.211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of intent to fell and treat stump with eco plugs (broadleaved) to one Oak (Holm) tree at 139 Hornsey Lane, London, N6 5NH We write in reference to our site survey of 31/03/2023 and confirm that we are the arboriculturists appointed on behalf of property insurers of the above risk address. It is the view of chartered engineers appointed to investigate damage that the property has suffered differential movement and subsequent damage consistent with tree related clay shrinkage subsidence. Further to discussions with the Structural Engineer who is assessing the required remedial works for the property, we are of the opinion that it is preferable to remove the implicated trees. This is because retaining the trees and implementing an engineered solution cannot happen without having serious effect on their root systems which are influencing the structure of the risk address. This submission consists of a formal notification under Conservation Area Regulations of our intention to remove the trees as mentioned above which we believe are not protected under any Tree Preservation Order. Whilst insurers have no requirement to submit prescribed levels of supporting evidence in relation to a Conservation Area notification, we are enclosing copies of relevant technical reports, in the attached Appendices, as itemised below: 1. A site plan, survey tables and photographs which locates vegetation that is the subject of this notification. 2. Level monitoring 3. Engineers Reports 4. Site investigation report 1. Damage to the insured’s property has resulted from tree related subsidence: • History and timing of damage indicates it is tree root induced movement • Pattern of damage relative to the trees and mechanism of movement implicates the itemised tree species Please accept this letter as our formal notification to undertake the works detailed below: Tree Number (as per PRI plan) Common name Specification T3 Oak (Holm) Fell and treat stump with eco plugs (broadleaved)
T2 Beech - Fell and treat stump with eco plugs. (Works to T1 Beech will be considered separately under application reference HGY/2024/2115, as this tree is also protected by a TPO, as well as located within a Conservation Area) Our Ref: 274591 Statement of Reasons for Tree Preservation Order Application to fell and treat Beech tree (T1) and Beech tree (T2) at: 137 Hornsey Lane, N6 5NH TPO Ref: TPO/2014/0517 1. The above tree works are proposed as a remedy to the differential foundation movement at the insured property and to ensure the long-term stability of the building. 2. The above tree works are proposed to limit the extent and need for expensive and disruptive engineering repair works at the insured property. In this instance the estimated repair costs are likely to vary between £25,000 and £450,000, depending upon whether the tree/s can be removed or must remain. 3. The above tree works are proposed to limit the extent and need for costly CO2e emissions relating to alternative engineering repair works at the insured property. A typical underpinning scheme can include a carbon cost of more than 6000 kg CO2e and soil stabilisation or root barriers more than 4000 kg CO2e. A typical tree might capture between 15-40kg CO2e per annum and would therefore take centuries to mitigate the cost in CO2e on any alternative. We also confirm that the applicant has included this scheme and application in its tree planting and carbon capture off-set scheme for trees causing subsidence to low rise buildings which has already seen some 11,000 trees planted and additionally 220 tonnes of carbon captured. 4. The above tree works are proposed to limit the duration of any claim period and therefore allow the landowner their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. 5. It is the case that an alternative to felling such as pruning or significant ‘pollarding’ of the tree would not provide a reliable or sustainable remedy to the subsidence in this case. We do not consider that any other potential means of mitigation, including root barriers, would be effective or appropriate in the circumstances. 6. We are satisfied that the evidence obtained following completion of our Arboricultural Implication Assessment report completed 31/03/2023, clearly links T1 and T2 Beech as the cause of damage to the risk address 7. Insurers understanding the requirement to offer replacement planting in the event consent to fell is granted. 8. Should you wish to visit the address or to discuss any technical matters your technical liaison in this instance is Henry Collings who can be contacted on 07740 737412. We stress we would be happy to meet or to have any discussion if this allows the Council to fully understand our application and the issues surrounding this. Your technical liaison can also handle any technical information or clarification regarding technical matters. Olly Leonard Mitigation Co-Ordinator PRI Insurance Services
**None of the listed works require notice or permission** T028 - Cherry, plum - Reduce height by 2.5m to reduce weight of leaning tree. T027 - Cotoneaster - Lift to 4m over footpath. T016 - Laurel - Trim height and sides and cut back from property by 1m. T003 - Ash Tree - Dead Tree - Fell to ground level. T019 - Italian Cypress - Fell to ground level due to tree pushing retaining wall out of position and cracks have appeared. (Works to T029 - Oak Tree do not require notice or permission)
Flat 14 125 Hornsey Lane Hornsey London N6 5NH · premises record
Front Garden: North eastern boundary with No.143: T1: Mature Cherry: Approximately 13.00m: Fell to ground level. Tree is in decline, suffering crown dieback and main stem almost totally dead. T2: Thuja: Approximately 8.00m: Fell to ground level. Dying tree.
Works to trees protected by a TPO: T1) Lime tree on boundary with Hornsey Lane: Reduce overall crown by up to 2.5 metres. T2) Lime tree on boundary with Hornsey Lane: Reduce overall crown by up to 2.5 metres. T3) Horse Chestnut at front of property: Reduce overall crown by up to 2.5 metres. T4) Large Oak tree at side of property: Reduce overall crown by up to 2.5 metres. All of these trees have been previously reduced to this specification. All pruning cuts will be made strictly to BS3998 and within existing reduction framework.
Building-control records are not yet collected for Haringey — the register is being gathered borough by borough (held so far: Lambeth, Brent, Ealing, Westminster, City and others).
Place
What affects it?
Designations are shown per premises today (open any premises above); the postcode-level designation summary is built with the borough entity run. Use the map's designations filter to see them over the postcode now.
People
Who is involved?
Named on the latest 26 applications in this postcode — the party who applied, not the owner or occupier.
Planning precedent26 applications and 0 mapped decisions in this postcode — precedent for what has been permitted and refused here.
Energy23 EPC records; ratings C: 9, D: 14.
What is not assertedNo capacity, value or ownership claim is made at area level; those belong to individual premises records and their evidence.
Intent signals · Planning Atlas Pro
Ownership, finance and market signals recorded at addresses in this postcode — each with date and source. Signals are evidence of change, not a prediction.
Signal
Evidence
Price decline · 26 Feb 2021
last sale £586,000 · 2% drop · 125 FLAT 3 HORNSEY LANE · source hmlr_ppd
Repeat sale · 5 Feb 2019
last sale £515,000 · 127 - 127A HORNSEY LANE · source hmlr_ppd
Price decline · 5 Feb 2019
last sale £515,000 · 16% drop · 127 - 127A HORNSEY LANE · source hmlr_ppd
Price decline · 26 Feb 2021
last sale £586,000 · 2% drop · 125 FLAT 3 HORNSEY LANE · source hmlr_ppd
Repeat sale · 5 Feb 2019
last sale £515,000 · 127 - 127A HORNSEY LANE · source hmlr_ppd
Price decline · 5 Feb 2019
last sale £515,000 · 16% drop · 127 - 127A HORNSEY LANE · source hmlr_ppd
7 intent signals recorded in this postcode
Price decline · Repeat sale · Long hold · Ageing director