Homeowner forced to remove fence from his own land after planners say it is too 'overbearing' for walkers using nearby public footpath

Giles Savage thought that replacing and moving the 'derelict' fence around his £635,000 home would be a straightforward project. 

But when neighbours told him he had been brave to put in a fresh wooden fence to enclose his property, alarm bells started ringing. 

Now planning chiefs have told him he has to tear down the 26ft barrier because it was too 'overbearing' for walkers using a nearby public footpath.

Mr Savage shifted the garden fence on the East Broyle estate in Chichester, West Sussex, in August 2025 - four months after moving. 

He claims the existing structure was falling apart and he and his wife used climbing plants to cover the new boundary - with most neighbours allegedly in favour of it. 

The project would have allowed Mr Savage, 36, to increase the size of his garden by up to eight metres and was a 'big part' of his decision to buy the property.

But thanks to a 'very strange set of rules' which residents say date back to the 1960s, the local was told to move the fence back - or tear it down - despite owning the land.

The homeowner in March applied for retrospective permission which was rejected by Chichester District Council (CDC) two months later.

Giles Savage shifted his fence, pictured, closer to a path next to his £635,000 home on the East Broyle estate in Chichester, West Sussex in August 2025

It was previously eight metres further back, pictured, but Mr Savage believed he could extend it as it was on his land

Commenting on the verdict, the local East Broyle Residents Association claimed that allowing the fence to go up would 'harm the character' of the estate.

 Mr Savage then took the dispute all the way to the Planning Inspectorate but the government body sided with the council, branding the structure 'overbearing'.

The homeowner, who works with off-shore yachts, spent thousands on the new fence after moving into the four-bed property with his wife and young children.

He said: 'We double-checked all the covenants, all the documents we had and we didn't see anything that meant we couldn't put the fence there. 

Mr Savage - told by his solicitors he did not need planning permission - said he only realised something was wrong when neighbours said he was 'brave' for building it.

Months later, a representative from CDC said his fence could need planning permission thanks to conditions imposed on the estate when it was built in the 1960s.

Rejecting Mr Savage's appeal, an inspector said in a ruling: '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 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.

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.'