Giles Savage, a homeowner in Chichester, West Sussex, has been ordered to remove a fence he installed on his own land after planning authorities deemed it too "overbearing" for users of a nearby public footpath.
Savage, who purchased his £635,000 home on the East Broyle estate in August 2025, replaced a "derelict" fence to increase his garden size by up to eight meters. He believed he was within his rights to do so, as the land was his and he had reviewed the property's covenants. His decision was also reportedly supported by most of his neighbors, and he and his wife enhanced the appearance of the new boundary with climbing plants.
However, after neighbors commented on his "bravery" in building the fence, alarm bells began to ring. A representative from Chichester District Council (CDC) later informed Savage that planning permission might be required due to conditions imposed on the estate when it was built in the 1960s. These conditions, according to residents, relate to maintaining open amenity land.
Savage applied for retrospective planning permission in March, but it was rejected by the CDC two months later. The local East Broyle Residents Association had argued that allowing the fence would "harm the character" of the estate and could set a precedent for similar applications. They stated that permitting the structure would "open the floodgates" to applications detrimental to the estate's ambience.
An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate followed, but the government body upheld the council's decision. The inspector ruled that the fencing, in its position, "runs counter to the general ethos adopted across the estate in terms of means of enclosure and where they are positioned." The ruling further stated that the structure "both reduces the sense of spaciousness and is a somewhat overbearing feature for pedestrians," conflicting with the overall development plan.
A council officer clarified that the issue involved a change of use of land from open amenity space to garden, not merely the installation of a fence. The land in question had been an open amenity area for many years, contributing to the sense of space valued by residents.
Savage expressed his disappointment, noting the support from his neighbors and the efforts he and his wife made to maintain the property's appearance. He stated his intention to comply with the ruling, even if it means moving the fence back. Richard Plowman, a neighbor of 40 years, commented that while the work was done well, it contravened 60-year-old rules, and suggested that Savage should have been alerted to the long-standing issue earlier. The residents' association is reportedly planning a meeting with a local councilor to clarify these estate rules for future residents.
