A COUPLE face having to tear down their 6.5ft garden fence after officials found it to be “ugly” and “out of character” with a posh neighbourhood.
Paul and Lisa Toomer live in an affluent suburb of Poole, Dorset, close to the prestigious Parkstone Golf Club.
The couple bought their £1.15m house five years ago but became concerned about security after a spate of attempted burglaries in the area.
They were also concerned about privacy after a new house was built on the road behind, which they say now looks directly into their property.
So they erected a two metre (6.5ft) wooden fence at the bottom of their garden, thinking they were within their rights under permitted development.
But they got a visit from the local council, who said because it borders a highway, only a one metre (3.2ft) fence was allowed and they would need to apply for retrospective planning permission.
They did as they were told but despite receiving no objections the council refused the application.
They were told the timber structure was “out of character” for the area as other houses rely on “dense tree cover” to form the rear boundary of their properties.
The BCP Council planning officer said: “The fencing is clearly visible along this stretch of street and appears prominent due to the height, use of materials and colour and is highly dominant against the background of the trees.
“There are no other similar examples of fencing within this stretch of the streetscene and the proposal is therefore visually dominant and not reflective of the character in an area where hard landscaping is limited.”
They said it was “materially harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene”.
The Toomers appealed but lost that too.
They have since been issued with enforcement notices, which they have also appealed.
If those are upheld they will have to remove the fence completely or reduce it to one metre, which they say would be pointless and provide no privacy or security.
They say they have already spent nearly £3,000 fighting the council’s “witch hunt”.
Mrs Toomer, 51, said: “The first we knew about the problem was we were on holiday and spoke to some guy from the council over our doorbell.
“It’s a normal, wooden fence, just under two metres.
“But they said because it borders a highway it’s not covered by permitted development and said we must have retrospective planning permission.
“So we applied, but even though it’s already there they said photographs weren’t enough, they needed proper architectural drawings with scale and measurements on it so we had to pay someone several hundred pounds to do that and then they said it was likely to get refused.
“It’s just a normal garden fence, but they said it’s not in keeping, it’s ugly, it’s completely out of character.
“Our application was refused but before we even had a chance to submit the appeal, the guy from the council came to visit us and handed us both an enforcement notice each, it’s utterly ridiculous.
“It’s not on a busy well-used highway, it’s a dead end road. The only people that would even be affected is a handful of people who live there.
Mr Toomer, a 60-year-old Scuba diving instructor, added: “Their argument is because it borders a highway it must not be higher than one metre tall, but if you look in the surrounding area there are many fences that are higher than one metre and border a highway.
“It’s funny because the council put these up all over the place and all the council fences look exactly the same as ours.
“Everything we have done has made the house better. I was going to paint the fence and put creepers and plants on it so it would be more hidden and camouflaged but I’m not going to spend any more money if I might have to tear it down.
“So it’s just been left like that for a year. But before it was ugly, gnarly bushes. It was unkempt wilderness and the remainders of a wire fence that looked ghastly.
“We had tree surgeons in and they removed everything that was dead – with the correct planning permissions from the council.
“The house that has been built behind us, they could now gaze directly into our property.
“All I want is privacy and security. There have been a few attempted burglaries in the area. I want to protect my wife and son.”
A date has not been set yet for the appeal decision.
