A homeowner finds himself puzzled by his “envious” neighbor amid a contentious disagreement over a six-foot fence deemed illegal.
Marcus Brown sought retrospective approval for the fence, which he erected to provide privacy for his family in their garden in Trowbridge.
To his surprise, a neighbor filed a formal objection, criticizing the fence as an “overbearing and conspicuous” addition to the area.
In his defense, Mr. Brown explained that he was unaware of the requirement for planning permission for fences exceeding one meter in height when built next to a roadway.
However, he was taken aback when his neighbor, James Sutherland, urged the council to deny his application, igniting a significant dispute.
Mr. Sutherland argued that the fence was “detrimental” and clashed with the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood.
‘It creates a stark and dominant feature that disrupts the openness and uniformity of the streetscape,’ he wrote in his objection letter.
‘As such, the development conflicts with local planning policies that seek to preserve the character and visual amenity of residential areas.’
Marcus Brown applied for retrospective planning on the fence after building it to ensure they have privacy for their child in their Trowbridge garden
But he has since been left baffled after a neighbour he does not know objected to the plans, bemoaning that the feature was ‘dark and prominent’
Marcus, 35, does not know the man who objected and says the statement, adding that the matter had been ‘blown out of proportion’.
‘it’s baffling. The whole reason we’ve done this is my daughter,’ he said. ‘We haven’t cut down any trees, we’d say we’ve actually improved it.Â
‘Before it was overgrown, you couldn’t see round the corner in the car – that was a nightmare – you couldn’t walk past it.
‘It was overgrown, disgusting, and we couldn’t see out of our window. We’ve made the area look better and planted more wildlife.
‘As you can imagine, people on this street were happy, but we’ve been punished for trying to improve it, do some good.
‘You always upset someone, I just think it’s jealousy personally. I don’t even know the person who complained.
‘Me and my wife put our life savings into this place so we can have a nice family home for my daughter, and this is how we get rewarded. I just want this to go away.’
Mr Brown insisted the feedback he received from neighbours was largely positive, adding that the whole street wanted the fence ‘to stop the bushes overgrowing’.Â
‘We’ve tried to be as good as we can – kept noise and dust to a minimum, spent extra to get all the rubbish away,’ he said. ‘I did not even think the fence would be a problem.
‘If worst comes to worst, I will just have to cut it down to the next rail, and people would just be able to see into my garden, see my daughter and dogs playing.’
The retrospective planning application was submitted on March 5, so the fence which had already been built could be ‘regularise[d]’.Â
The fence is described as being behind a boundary wall and on their property. The applicants say it does not encroach on the highway and serves as a clear boundary.
In a planning statement, the applicant added that the fence is an improvement on the street scene, improving drivers’ line of sight.
They also said the fence provides a clearer path for pedestrians, as other neighbours voiced their support for the fence.Â
Among them were Brian Hobday, 71, and his wife Adrienne, 70.
‘It’s loads better now,’ Brian said. ‘The pavement is free now from all the bushes, we have no problem. It enhances the area.Â
‘They checked with us for everything they have done, we’re happy about it. You could not ask for anyone better.’
 A neighbour, known only as Steve, 62, added: ‘People should just let people get on. They’ve got kids so put the fence up for a bit of privacy.
‘I don’t have a problem, you could see right through the window, I wouldn’t want that.’
A decision on the planning application will by made by the councillors at a later date.
M
