Retired Couple Face Order to Dismantle £4,500 Privacy Fence After Losing Council Appeal
A retired couple from Bolton are confronting the distressing prospect of having to tear down a substantial £4,500 privacy fence they erected around their property, following an unsuccessful appeal against a council decision.
Privacy and Security Motivations Behind the Fence Installation
David and Denise Hopwood, aged 67 and 66 respectively, installed a 25-metre-long, seven-foot-high grey composite fence to replace an aging nine-foot hedge that had become increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. The couple, who both suffer from arthritis, cited privacy, security, and reduced maintenance as their primary reasons for the installation.
"We put it up for privacy and security, as well as it is ideal for maintenance purposes," David explained. "The hedge was out of control, we weren't able to look after it." The previous hedge had cost them approximately £800 annually to maintain, a significant burden given their medical conditions and retirement.
Neighbour Complaint Triggers Planning Dispute
The situation escalated when a neighbour lodged a formal complaint with the local council regarding the fence's height and aesthetic impact. This compelled the Hopwoods to apply for retrospective planning permission, which was subsequently denied last year. Council officials argued that the fence clashed with the "character and appearance of the surrounding area."
Undeterred, the couple challenged this decision, emphasising how the fence had "transformed" their lives by providing much-needed privacy. They even revealed that before installing the fence, they had resorted to hanging blankets on their washing line to prevent neighbours from peering into their garden.
Council Inspector's Detailed Assessment and Final Ruling
Following a recent site inspection, the council upheld its original decision, leaving the Hopwoods facing the likely requirement to dismantle the structure. An official planning inspector's report outlined five specific grounds for rejecting their appeal.
The report noted that the property is situated at the junction of Plodder Lane and Duchy Avenue, an area described as having a "semi-rural character" with open countryside views. While boundary treatments along the street vary, the inspector observed that properties generally feature relatively open frontages with low walls, wooden fencing, or railings, often complemented by established hedging.
The 2.1-metre-high fence, positioned at the rear edge of the pavement, was deemed "very prominent" for those travelling along Plodder Lane. Despite being adorned with a decorative one-foot trellis and gravel boards, the structure was considered to completely enclose the frontage and appear "at odds with the open frontages, low walls and hedgerows of the dwellings opposite."
Furthermore, the inspector highlighted that the black composite panels "starkly contrast" with the red brick of the house and adjoining lower wall, ultimately labelling the fence as a "discordant and strident feature in the street scene."
Consideration of Personal Circumstances Deemed Insufficient
The report acknowledged that the appellants' personal circumstances, including their privacy and security concerns, had been taken into account. However, it concluded there was "insufficient evidence" to suggest that the fence's height and material were necessary to achieve these goals, or that a safe and private environment could not be established in a manner causing less harm to the area's character.
David expressed his frustration, stating, "I feel we have been hard done by saying it doesn't fit with the street scene, there isn't one size that fits all here. They seem to be focused on the colour and the type but there is a right mix already on the street." He pointed out other fences in the area, including a jet black one and several brick structures, feeling they had been unfairly singled out.
Stressful Ordeal and Uncertain Future
The couple have yet to receive a formal enforcement notice but anticipate this as the next step. David commented, "The appeal is the end of the line, an enforcement notice is usually the next course of action. The whole ordeal has been very stressful. Hopefully they will just order us to change the colour and not replace it with something else."
If forced to remove the fence, the Hopwoods described the outcome as "terrible," facing not only the financial loss but also the return of privacy concerns and maintenance burdens they sought to eliminate with their £4,500 investment.
