A mother has been forced to rip down an “ugly” two-metre fence after losing a £4,000 bid.
Sophie Daly, 45, who has two children, put up the timber privacy fence and gates at her Monmouthshire property before seeking retrospective planning permission.
One neighbour actually voiced support for the boundary, describing it as “modern but respectful”.
However, planning officials determined the fence caused “unacceptable harm to the visual amenity and open character of the area”.
The decision was then upheld by an independent Welsh Government inspector.
The mother-of-two explained that a hedge previously marking her property’s front boundary had become strewn with rubbish and even discarded needles.
She opted to replace it with the timber fencing and gates, believing the design matched similar structures on neighbouring properties.
Ms Daly said the barrier was essential for safeguarding her family and her “large breed” dog from the heavily congested A48 road and nearby roundabout, situated just metres from her home.
A mother has been forced to rip down an ‘ugly’ two-metre fence after losing a £4,000 bid
|
GETTY
The major route connects England and Wales, and she argued the fence would also shield her household from the noise and pollution generated by constant traffic.
Monmouthshire County Council’s planning committee rejected the retrospective application.
They concluded that the fence “would fail to respect the existing layout and character of the surrounding built environment” and cited ecological concerns.
Conservative councillor Rachel Buckler acknowledged Ms Daly’s arguments but remained unconvinced.
The row broke out over the fence (file pic) | PEXELS
She said: “I do think it is detrimental and not in keeping, and to my mind the hedge was better.”
The committee maintained that the close-boarded timber structure was incompatible with the established streetscape, despite Ms Daly’s contention that comparable fencing existed on other properties in the vicinity.
Ms Daly challenged the council’s ruling, questioning precisely who was being harmed by her fence.
In her appeal, she said: “Without the fence and gates it would not be possible for my children to play outside or for my dog to be exercised securely within our own property.”
She emphasised the structure was “vital for protecting my family from traffic danger, ensuring personal security, enabling safe use of our main garden space.”
However, Inspector G Hall from Planning and Environment Decisions Wales dismissed her appeal.
They ruled the fence was “visually dominant and incongruous in the street scene, eroding the established character of this gateway approach”.
The inspector concluded that Ms Daly’s personal circumstances did not outweigh the conflicts with planning policy.
