Giles Savage believed replacing and relocating the “derelict” fence around his £635,000 home would be a simple improvement project.
However, his neighbours’ comments that he had been “brave” to install a new wooden boundary soon raised concerns.
Planning officials have now ordered him to remove the 26ft fence, ruling that it was too “overbearing” for people using a nearby public footpath.
Mr Savage moved the garden fence on the East Broyle estate in Chichester, West Sussex, in August 2025, four months after buying the property.
He said the original structure was falling into disrepair and that he and his wife covered the replacement boundary with climbing plants. Most of their neighbours, he claimed, supported the change.
The work would have expanded the garden by as much as eight metres. Mr Savage, 36, said the possibility of gaining that extra space was a “big part” of his decision to purchase the house.
But residents say a “very strange set of rules” dating back to the 1960s meant the homeowner had to move the fence back or remove it, even though he owned the land.
Mr Savage applied for retrospective planning permission in March, but Chichester District Council (CDC) rejected the application two months later.
Giles Savage moved his fence, pictured, closer to a footpath beside his £635,000 home on the East Broyle estate in Chichester, West Sussex, in August 2025
The fence had previously stood eight metres farther back, pictured, but Mr Savage believed he could extend it because the land belonged to him
After the council’s decision, the East Broyle Residents Association said allowing the fence to remain would “harm the character” of the estate.
Mr Savage appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, but the government body upheld the council’s decision and described the fence as “overbearing”.
The homeowner, who works with offshore yachts, spent thousands of pounds on the new fence after moving into the four-bedroom property with his wife and young children.
He said: “We double-checked all the covenants and all the documents we had, and we didn’t see anything that meant we couldn’t put the fence there.”
Mr Savage said his solicitors had told him planning permission was not required. He only began to suspect there was a problem after neighbours described him as “brave” for building the fence.
Several months later, a CDC representative told him the fence might require planning permission because of conditions placed on the estate when it was developed in the 1960s.
Dismissing Mr Savage’s appeal, a planning inspector wrote: “Having seen the fencing in situ, it runs counter to the general ethos adopted across the estate in terms of means of enclosure and where they are positioned.
“It both reduces the sense of spaciousness and is a somewhat overbearing feature for pedestrians.
MORE STORY: Brick Township, NJ Bans Roosters After Residents Complain About Noise
“The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole.”
Mr Savage said: “It’s just a shame really. All of our neighbours have shown unwavering support for the fence.”
‘The old fence that was there was quite derelict – it had a lot of holes in it.
‘My wife loves gardening, she planted plants all up and down it – some climbing wisteria, it would climb up the fence to make a nice little border.
‘We like to maintain our land and keep it as neat and tidy for anybody walking up and down.
‘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.’
Speaking after the appeal was refused, next door neighbour and resident of 40 years Richard Plowman, 77, claimed the new fence contravened 60-year-old rules.
He said: ‘It’s just very unfortunate in some respects. Mr Savage never came and spoke to us – if he’d came and spoke to us, we could have alerted him to the problems with the amenity land and things, because it’s been an issue for some time.
‘I thought that the job that was done was good, but unfortunately it was against the planning permission that was originally given to the houses on the estate. It’s a very strange set of rules.’
He added: ‘The residents’ association are looking at having a meeting with the local councillor to make sure we can put some clarification for the estate for new people coming in – because they find it quite confusing.’
Commenting on the appeal, the local East Broyle Residents Association said allowing the fence to remain could ‘set a precedent’ for others to do the same thing.
Richard Plowman, pictured, who lives next door across the footpath, claimed the new fence contravened 60-year-old rules
The homeowner applied for retrospective permission which was rejected by Chichester District Council – before an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate was also turned down
He claims the existing structure was ‘derelict’ and he and his wife improved the look of it
Another local added that permitting the structure would ‘open the floodgates to numerous similar applications which would be detrimental to the character and ambience the residents currently enjoy’.
A council officer said: ‘This matter concerns a change of use of land from open amenity space to garden, rather than just the installation of a fence.
‘The piece of land in question had been an area of open amenity land for many years, and has added to the feeling of space and openness which is highly valued by residents in the area.
‘The Planning Inspector upheld the council’s decision to refuse permission to change the use of the land and the fencing enclosure that would result from it, for the same reasons, and agreed that it was not consistent with the way that the estate had originally been designed.’
