The outline application, with all matters reserved, sought permission for a three-bedroom dwelling in the rear garden of a property on Kanes Hill, following the demolition of outbuildings. Access would run along a new drive formed by demolishing the host dwelling's side garage. The applicant relied heavily on a 2004 permission for a neighbouring backland house as justification for the scheme.
The client, a neighbouring resident whose home adjoins the application site, faced a proposal on noticeably higher ground, with the submitted site plan placing the new dwelling and its parking area close to the shared boundary. They were concerned about overlooking, an overbearing relationship and the disturbance of every vehicle movement passing beside their garden.
Policy DM1(1)(a)(i) of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016–2036 requires that development does not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity, which the supporting text confirms includes overlooking, outlook, noise and parking arrangements. We showed how the difference in ground levels would heighten both overlooking and overbearing effects, so that even ground-floor windows would afford elevated views over the boundary. We also showed that the parking and turning area would sit immediately beside the neighbouring home. The Quality Places SPD (2026) specifically identifies privacy, overbearing massing and topography as constraints that must be identified and addressed. The submission addressed none of them.
The western side of Kanes Hill is defined by detached houses fronting the road with long rear gardens forming a continuous band of open, landscaped space. We explained that a second backland house would turn a single exception into a consolidated second row of development, eroding that garden grain contrary to Policy DM1(1)(c). We also argued that the 2004 permission deserved only limited weight. It was decided under a superseded development plan, and the existence of that earlier house is now a constraint on the site, not a justification for building on it.
The Council's Ecologist had required a bat check of the outbuilding before determination, along with ecological enhancements, and neither had been provided. The applicant's own nutrient calculator identified a nitrogen load requiring mitigation for the Solent marine sites, with no mitigation secured, contrary to Policies DM10 and DM11. Natural England also lodged an objection to the application.
No sustainable drainage scheme had been provided, although Policy DM6(2)(d) requires one at outline stage. We also asked that the Highway Authority's requirements for a widened 4.8-metre access, on-site turning and a construction management plan be secured if the Council was minded to approve.
Shortly before the close of consultation, the applicant submitted an amended site plan that moved the proposed house closer to the neighbouring boundary. Eastleigh Borough Council extended the consultation, and Planning Voice was instructed to prepare a follow-up objection. In October 2026, the applicant withdrew the application.
Related guidance: New Dwellings · Loss of Privacy · South East
Start with a free, no-obligation assessment. We’ll advise on the strength of your case before you commit to anything.
Get Free Assessment →