Housing redevelopment changes at Housing Redevelopment, Hutton

The site and changes

The site is beside Hanging Hill Lane and Hutton Drive, with nearby homes; the changes increase a northern building’s height and replace a felled tree.

“The site is located on the east of Hanging Hill Lane and north of Hutton Drive and is a strategic housing site that was granted planning permission in 2021 for redevelopment. Hoarding around the development site has been in place for some time with demolition commencing in late 2023 and completed in early 2025 and groundworks commencing. The northern section of Brookfield Close has been partially closed to pedestrians and vehicles.”

“The amendments include an increase in the height of between 0.3m and 0.8m of the northern building with the 1.1m high detachable maintenance railings on the stairwells of the northern building, alterations to the landscaping plan to include a replacement tree T21 for a tree felled post demolition and details of the external materials.”

Officer report

The officer assessment

Officers considered the height, materials and landscaping changes acceptable, with no additional floorspace and no unacceptable effect on neighbours.

“Comment: The proposal seeks to vary condition 2 which restricted the proposal to be built in accordance with the plans submitted. Changes to the approved plans include an increase in the height of between 0.3m and 0.8m of the northern building with the 1.1m high detachable maintenance railings on the stairwells of the northern building. The increase in height of Courage Court is discussed in the accompanying planning application 25/00385/FUL.”

“Comment: The changes to the materials include the balconies discussed above and the removal of cladding and the northern apartment building to have Weinerberger Dakota red bricks with chalk colour render. The dwellings are also proposed to have these bricks with render. The timber cladding originally proposed is now proposed to be replaced with Cedral vertically laid black cladding on some elevations.”

Officer report

Specialist views

The landscape officer supported the replacement tree and landscaping, while the highway authority found no transport effect from the changes.

“Comment: The oak tree was in very poor condition (shown with photographic evidence) prior to the landscape officer agreeing it could be felled and replaced with 1 No. Sorbus torminalis, which is smaller and better suited to the site conditions and the current section 73 application recommends this be accepted in accordance with the landscape and ecology officer’s advice.”

“Landscape And Ecology: The felled tree (T21) was an oak which was listed as a Category B on the plan. I received a photo of the tree in June 2024 which showed that the tree was clearly not a Cat B and would struggle to be a Cat C at best. The crown reductions were not recent and there was a lot of dieback in the crown. It is within part of the site where there are some level changes.”

Officer report

Views about the tree

A neighbour objected that the felled mature oak had not been suitably replaced; officers said it was in poor condition and approved a replacement.

“Neighbour Responses Objection to landscaping proposal as mature oak tree (T21) that was to be retained under the planning permission was felled and the landscaping proposal does not include a suitable replacement.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The consultant planner presented the application, and ward councillors supported it and thanked officers.

Committee discussion

One councillor supported the application but asked officers for an explanation about why the tree was no longer preserved.

“Cllr Mynott, although in support of the application, expressed concerns regarding the tree which should have been retained and sought an explanation from officers, outside of the meeting by email, as to why the tree was no longer preserved.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was approved unanimously, subject to the conditions set out for the changes to the existing permission.

“Following discussion Cllr Patel MOVED and Cllr Barber SECONDED a motion to APPROVE the application.”

“The application was APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY subject to the conditions outlined in the report.”

Minutes