A bitter planning row has kicked off in Somerset about an illegal six-foot fence.
The structure was erected without planning permission, meaning when a complaint was lodged by a disgruntled neighbour, the homeowner was forced to submit a retrospective application.
In a statement attached to the application, the homeowner set out their wish to “regularise” the development.
The fence is being described as a boundary wall and on the homeowner’s property.
They argue it does not encroach on the highway and serves as a clear boundary.
In a planning statement, the applicant adds that the fence has improved the street’s aesthetic while also improving drivers’ line of sight and providing a clearer path for pedestrians.
The application has had several responses, almost all of them showing support.
One neighbour said: “This new fence looks great. The home owners have made the area look so much tidier and better.
The six-foot fence was erected with safety of the homeowner's child in mind
|WILTSHIRE COUNCIL / GOOGLE MAPS
“And when driving up willow grove sounds odd but it helps make the road stand out more so it's safer for drivers in both directions focus on the road.
“My overall comment is this fence is absolutely stunning it brightens the area up also it gives the homeowner a lot more security as I do believe they have a young child and some pets.”
Another local was less receptive, complaining the fence fails to preserve the street’s “established character”.
His response to the application read: “The proposed development is harmful to the established character and appearance of the street scene. The surrounding properties along Willow Grove are predominantly open-plan or feature low boundary treatments, contributing to a consistent and visually cohesive residential environment.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
Hedges previously shielded the garden
|WILTSHIRE COUNCIL
“The introduction of a 1.8m solid timber fence across the front boundary is visually prominent and out of keeping with this established pattern. It creates a stark and dominant feature that disrupts the openness and uniformity of the streetscape.
“As such, the development conflicts with local planning policies that seek to preserve the character and visual amenity of residential areas.”
The homeowner, Marcus Browne, was left aghast at the fact the objection, suggesting jealousy was at play.
He responded to the complaint by clarifying several points for the council’s consideration.
When the property had its previous low fence, “passersby would frequently stand and stare directly” into the garden, the applicant said.
They concluded: “We believe that the need for a safe, private environment for our…child, combined with the fact that this is a side garden rather than a front frontage, justifies the current height.”