A homeowner has lost a battle to increase the size of his garden by up to eight metres after planning bosses ruled his new fence is ‘overbearing’.
Giles Savage shifted his fence closer to a footpath outside his £635,000 home on the East Broyle estate in Chichester, West Sussex, in August 2025.
But despite Mr Savage owning the land swallowed up by the move, Chichester District Council (CDC) refused planning permission.
The 36-year-old appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, but the government body sided with the council.
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.’
Mr Savage, who works with offshore yachts, moved into the four-bed detached property in April 2025, and lives there with his wife and young children.
He said he spent thousands to move the home’s previously ‘derelict’ garden fence from its original location and consulted solicitors before purchasing his home.
He now faces having to move it back at cost – or tear it down, despite double-checking the documents.
‘It’s our land, we actually own the land,’ he said. Mr Savage said he didn’t know anything was wrong until neighbours commented that he was ‘brave’ for building the fence after it went up.
Months later, a representative from CDC said his fence could need planning permission thanks to conditions put on the estate back when it was built in the 1960s.
Mr Savage submitted a retrospective application for the fence in March of this year, which was rejected two months later – after officers said it would adversely affect the area.
He then went to the Planning Inspectorate, but the body refused his appeal.
Follow Metro on WhatsApp to be the first to get all the latest news
Metro’s on Whatsapp! Join our community for breaking news and juicy stories.
East Broyle Residents Association said allowing the fence to go up would ‘harm the character’ of the estate and could ‘set a precedent’ for others to do the same thing.
Resident Colin Molyneux said that permitting the fence would ‘open the floodgates to numerous similar applications which would be detrimental to the character and ambience the residents currently enjoy.’
The planning inspector added: ‘The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.’
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.
‘We’ve got two kids and a dog; we just wanted a usable garden for them really. If we have to move the fence back, we have to move the fence back. To me, it’s disappointing that in the title deeds it’s our land, but there’s maybe some document that says we can’t close the land.’
CDC said: ‘This matter concerns a change of use of land from open amenity space to garden, rather than just the installation 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.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.