Nearly one in six planning applications in London isn’t for development at all — it’s a request to trim a tree, put up a sign, or drop a kerb. These statutory consents get approved almost every time, yet queue through the same formal route as a 200-home scheme. Pick a type to see where it lands.
All non-development — by boroughclick to isolate →
Loading map…
RangeBarking And Dagenham 520→Camden 11,807
118,571
Submitted
89.0%
Approved
6.0 wks
Median decision
Showingacross all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
1 in 6
applications isn’t development
trees, signs & licences
118,571
non-development applications
of 750,834 decisions on record
89.0%
approved
almost none are ever refused
5.7 wks
to approve a tree
adverts take 8.1 weeks
What’s in the queue that isn’t developmentThree statutory consent types · click a row to map it
None of these build anything. They are approved between 84% and 92% of the time — yet an advertisement consent takes 8.1 weeks at the median, longer than many housing decisions. The question this raises isn’t whether trees or signage matter — it’s whether they belong in the same statutory route, and the same eight-week clock, as the schemes that address the housing shortage.
Most tree applications aren’t even decidedOf 90,818 tree applications on record
39,726
formally approved or refused
51,092
waved through by default
More than half of tree applications are conservation-area notifications, where the council simply doesn’t object within a set window — so the application is approved by inaction. The system already treats most of these as no-brainers. It just makes the applicant wait first.
Who spends the most on applications that build nothingAll non-development · top boroughs
Camden tops the list — 11,807 non-development applications, roughly 37.7% of everything it decides. Every one is officer time not spent on housing.
The numbers barely move once you strip them outHeadline approval rate vs development-only
London (avg)
81% dev-only · was 82%
Camden
93% dev-only · was 93%
Westminster
90% dev-only · was 89%
Richmond Upon Thames
82% dev-only · was 82%
Kensington And Chelsea
90% dev-only · was 91%
The honest finding: stripping out trees, signs and licences barely moves the headline approval rate — they're approved at almost the same rate as everything else. The cost isn't inflated approval figures, it's volume and time — 118,571 applications and the officer-weeks they consume, sitting in the same queue as housing.
Application types classified by the universal taxonomy (taxonomy & method); trees, advertisements and licences are flagged non-development and excluded from headline figures. Volumes, approval rates and decision times computed across the loaded London borough registers. Approval rate = approved ÷ (approved + refused); most tree applications receive no formal decision (conservation-area notifications approved by inaction).