Homeowner Must Remove Fence After Planners Deem It 'Overbearing'
A homeowner in West Sussex has been ordered to remove a fence he installed on his own land, with officials citing its 'overbearing' nature for users of a nearby public footpath.
Giles Savage relocated a fence closer to a public footpath adjacent to his £635,000 home on the East Broyle estate in Chichester, West Sussex, in August 2025. Four months after purchasing the property, Savage replaced what he described as a "derelict" existing fence, extending his garden by up to eight meters. He believed this was permissible as the land was his own, and he and his wife had improved the boundary's appearance with climbing plants.
However, neighbors' comments alerted Savage to potential issues. Chichester District Council rejected his subsequent application for retrospective planning permission. The East Broyle Residents Association argued that allowing the fence would "harm the character" of the estate and potentially "set a precedent."
A planning inspector later upheld the council's decision, ruling that the fence was "overbearing" for pedestrians and diminished the "sense of spaciousness" on the estate. The inspector stated that the structure conflicted with the overall development plan and was inconsistent with the estate's original design from the 1960s, which emphasized open amenity space.
Savage had consulted legal advice, which indicated he did not require planning permission. He expressed disappointment, noting the support from his immediate neighbors and the prior dilapidated state of the old fence. "If we have to move the fence back, we'll have to move the fence back – we'll have to do something to comply with the rules and regulations," he stated.
Richard Plowman, a resident of 40 years, commented that Savage had not consulted with neighbors, who could have warned him about the long-standing issue of amenity land. He described the situation as unfortunate and acknowledged that the work done on the fence was good but violated the original planning permissions for the houses. Plowman also mentioned that the residents' association planned to meet with local councilors to clarify estate rules for new residents.
A council officer clarified that the matter involved a change of use of land from open amenity space to garden. The area in question had historically served as open space, contributing to the residents' valued sense of spaciousness. The Planning Inspector agreed with the council's assessment that the fence and the enclosure it created were not in keeping with the estate's original design ethos.