Planning row erupts as homeowner forced to remove fence from his own land due to it being ‘overbearing’

Mr Savage installed the almost two-metre high timber fence in 2025 to enclose the land, with planning documents arguing the change was “appropriate”.

His Design and Access Statement recorded advice from planning enforcement officers, indicating that the new fence itself did not require planning permission.

The council refused to grant the retrospective planning permission and argued the new fence line would “erode the open, spacious character of the surrounding estate”.

Despite the land in question being owned by Mr Savage, the planning officers said it had historically been maintained as open amenity land.

The property owner then appealed to the Planning Inspectorate about the dispute surrounding his Gloucester Way home.

However, Planning Inspector Stewart Glassar said the estate had been designed with a “conscious effort” to keep enclosures and boundaries built “generally away from roads, footpaths and junctions”.

The Inspector regarded these as public amenity and safety considerations that added to the harm of the proposal.

They also argued that the newly fenced off area was “inconsistent with the established street scene”.

As the new fence boundary was placed next to the public footpath, Mr Savage was told that the fence “reduces the sense of spaciousness and is a somewhat overbearing feature for pedestrians”.

Mr Glassar said: “The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole.

“There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

“Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.”

The homeowner also sought a full award of costs against Chichester District Council.

The application was also dismissed by the inspectorate, with Mr Glassar finding that the authority had “not acted unreasonably” in refusing the application.

The inspectorate concluded: “Even if the Council had excluded the means of enclosure from its assessment, there is nothing to suggest that the planning application would have been approved and an appeal averted.

“Thus, I do not find there to be sufficient grounds for the Council’s actions to be considered as unreasonable nor for them to have delayed a development which should clearly have been permitted.

“Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.”

Chichester District Council has been contacted for comment.