Five detached houses at The White House, Sleepers' Hill, Winchester

What was proposed

The proposal would demolish the existing house and build five detached homes, including two one-and-a-half-storey and three two-storey dwellings.

“The proposal is for the demolition of the existing house and replacement with 5 dwellings. There is a mix of two one and a half storey detached dwellings to the eastern side of the site, and three two storey detached dwellings on the western side of the plot.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a residential plot with tree belts protected by group orders, adjoining detached homes and access from an unadopted road.

“The Application Site (approximately 0.3 hectares in size) comprises a large detached two storey dwelling (the White House) and its residential curtilage. The site is accessed from Sleepers Hill, an unadopted road which lies to the south west. The north and south boundaries of the site are adjoined by detached dwellings, while the south east and north west boundaries are adjoined by mature tree belts which are subject to group Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).”

“The area of Sleepers Hill is comprised of predominantly large dwellings within large spacious plots, although there have been a number of developments within the surrounding area, which have reduced the size of the overall plot to house ratio. Notwithstanding this the locality largely retains is verdant and spacious character.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the amended design, landscaping, neighbour relationships, access, parking, ecology and other planning matters acceptable.

“The applicant has amended elements of the design that officers felt were not acceptable. Overall, it is felt that a good level of architectural design has been employed in the proposals, with well considered façades that would result in a design that is acceptable in relation to the character of Sleepers Hill.”

“Concerns have been raised by the tree and landscape officers in relation to the trees on the eastern edge of this site and the relationship with plots 1 and 2. Some amendments haves been made to the plans, which reduces the width of the access driveway and then in turn allows for the dwellings to be moved away a further metre from the trees.”

Officer report

Consultees and residents

Highways, drainage, environmental health and Southern Water raised no objections subject to requirements, while ecology and landscape matters led to revisions and conditions.

“Service Lead – Engineering (Drainage) • No objections, subject to a condition regarding the surface water run off (condition 9)”

“Service Lead – Sustainability and Natural Environment (Ecology) • Comments received on the 30 th June 2025 – Concerns relating to this application, more information is needed. • Comments received 24 th November – further compensatory planting is needed to take into account the loss of habitat.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Objections focused on density, overdevelopment, trees, biodiversity, traffic, neighbours, landscape and design, while supporters cited downsizer housing and rear gardens.

“Objecting Representations received from different addresses citing the following material planning reasons: • 6 dwellings would be overdevelopment • Too dense • Too much traffic • Impact to trees • Impact to neighbours • Landscape harm • Sewage concerns • Doesn’t meet design quality • Loss of biodiversity…”

“Objections were made since the amended plans were submitted on the 30 th October, there were no new correspondence. The reasons for the objections were the following: • Only a small reduction in floor area • Still out of keeping as properties too large • Impact to the trees • Impact to neighbours • Overdevelopment • Traffic…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two people spoke against the application, the applicant spoke in support, and both ward councillors addressed the committee in objection.

What members discussed

Ward members questioned the scheme’s scale, height, trees, biodiversity, local character, refuse arrangements and revisions, and requested a site visit if approval was considered.

“He was supportive of new housing on the site in principle but had three main concerns with the proposal. The first concern related to the scale and density of the development. He believed it negatively impacted adjacent properties due to its close proximity and overbearing height. He noted it would create a new Close, not just a new house, with no provision for refuse vehicle access, requiring up to 15 bins to be placed on the narrow road. 3.”

“She spoke in support of nearby residents' raising objection to the application. While not against building on the site, she felt the five proposed houses constituted an overdevelopment. She noted that although the scheme was altered from six houses to five, this did not address the proximity of buildings to existing trees, and the remaining houses were increased in size and height. She added that plot one appeared squeezed onto a narrow driveway. 3.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives, including the meeting updates.

“The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report, the Update Sheet and the verbal update.”

Minutes