Homeowner's Fence Swap Sparks Council Rejection Over Estate Covenants A £635,000 home in Chichester's East Broyle estate sees its new 26‑ft fence dismissed by the local council and inspectorate, citing 1960s rules and pedestrian amenity concerns. Giles Savage had envisioned a simple enhancement to his home on the East Broyle estate in Chichester as a routine improvement, but what began as a straightforward replacement of a failing fence soon evolved into a protracted legal battle that has drawn the attention of local planners and residents alike. He and his wife, a 36‑year‑old couple who recently settled into a four‑bedroom property worth £635,000, had moved in earlier that year and, five months later, took concrete action to replace the old derelict fence with a substantial new wooden structure. The intent was both practical and aesthetic: the new barrier would extend the private garden by eight metres, create a more defined boundary, and allow the couple to plant climbing wisteria and other flora along the face of the fence, thereby enhancing the visual appeal of their property.In many respects the fence appeared to fulfill each pair of owners' expectations and was well received by the surrounding community who appreciated the tidy containment it offered to the yard. However, a hitherto overlooked set of planning regulations dating back to the 1960s began to issue a warning and ultimately a refusal that would change the course of the project.Council Objects to Fence HeightThe local East Broyle Residents Association, together with the Chichester District Council (CDC), raised formal objections to the new fence based on longstanding covenants that governed the development of the estate. Though the property fell within the boundaries of the estate, the council asserted that the fence's height and position infringed upon an amenity area reserved for public footpaths.Their criticism was that the fence, standing 26 feet tall and situated overtly close to a nearby public footpath, would obstruct the sense of openness historically preserved within the street. The council's subsequent decision to refuse retrospective planning permission forced Savage to confront the issue head‑on. A councillor's statement clarified that the situation represented a transformation of land use from a "public amenity space to a private garden extension.Inspector Upholds Council Refusal" This re‑classification triggered a different set of planning controls that were not accounted for by the homeowner. The homeowner petitioned the Planning Inspectorate, hoping to secure a waiver or a reevaluation of the council's decision. The inspector, however, upheld the council's position and formally ruled the fence as "overbearing," explaining it would subvert the spirit of the estate's design and produce a "reducing of the sense of spaciousness" for pedestrians.The inspector's ruling was detailed: "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." The decision also noted that the new fence would potentially set a precedent for other property owners seeking to replicate the modification, thereby threatening the historic character and ambience that residents had cultivated for more than half a century. The controversy has brought into question how long‑standing covenants should be interpreted in the light of modern modifications.Residents Fear Floodgates for FencesThe resident's association expressed concern that an exception made for this fence could open "floodgates" for numerous similar applications that would adversely affect the estate's established aesthetic. A resident, Richard Plowman, who has lived on the street for seventy‑seven years, castigated the original developers for imposing "a very strange set of rules" decades earlier without clearly communicating them to new homeowners.He lamented that "Mr Savage never came and spoke to us - if he had come, we could have alerted him." In contrast, Savage maintained that the fence constituted a necessary improvement rather than an arbitrary construction. He reminded that "if we have to move the fence back, we'll have to do something to comply with the rules and regulations," thereby signalling his willingness to resolve the issue within the planning framework. In the long arc of the dispute it is clear that planning policies can supersede individual homeowner initiatives, even in seemingly minor circumstances like fence placement.Case Highlights Planning Policy BalanceThe outcome underscores the delicate balance between private property modification and the preservation of community character, especially within estates that were initially designed with strict controls to maintain a particular aesthetic. Although the final ruling upheld the council's authority to enforce the 1960s covenants, the case has fostered a broader conversation among developers, homeowners and planners about the evolution of area‑specific planning documentation and the need for clear communication to future residents about imposed restrictions in the property purchase process.