A North Yorkshire homeowner has been left outraged after local councillors ordered him to take down a fence measuring less than a metre in height. Despite initial approval from planning officers, the modest barrier was later rejected by the council, sparking frustration and debate over the enforcement of planning rules.
The Fence That Sparked Controversy
David Grange, a scaffolder from Ingleby Barwick, installed 0.9-metre-high black metal railings outside his property in St Brides Court. He purchased the railings from a local garden centre, expecting no issues. However, the small fence soon became the centre of a heated planning dispute after local councillors deemed it an “eyesore.”
Council Overturns Planning Approval
Initially, Stockton Council’s planning officers saw no problem with the fence and approved the installation. However, when the matter was later reviewed by the council’s planning committee on March 5, the decision was overturned.
Councillor Sylvia Walmsley was particularly critical, calling the fence “an absolute mess” that negatively impacted the look of the street. Another councillor, Norma Stephenson, suggested that allowing the railings might encourage other residents to put up similar barriers, saying:
“I think it’s a case of ‘be careful what you wish for.’ There’ll be a lot of residents around here who’ll want fencing.”
She also added:
“It’s not even up straight, for God’s sake. I think if it’s open plan, it’s open plan, and we stick to it.”
Ultimately, the committee voted 9-4 against the fence, citing a violation of the estate’s “open plan condition.”
Why Was the Fence Rejected?
The main reason behind the council’s decision was the estate’s open-plan design, which is intended to maintain an unobstructed appearance throughout the neighbourhood.
However, planning experts had argued that the fence was harmless, stating:
- It did not disrupt the visual openness of the area.
- It did not pose a safety risk to pedestrians.
- It was in keeping with the street’s overall character.
Despite these professional assessments, the councillors took a stricter stance and voted against allowing the fence to remain.
Homeowner Left Frustrated by Decision
Grange, who did not attend the meeting, was shocked by the decision. Speaking afterward, he expressed his frustration:
“I didn’t even think it’d come up for discussion.”
“How can Stockton planning, who are the experts, say: ‘Yes, we would approve this fence,’ but then it’s gone to a committee meeting and the councillors have said: ‘We don’t like that’?”
“It doesn’t make sense to me… You wouldn’t even notice the fence. By definition, it’s not even a fence.”
Despite his disappointment, Grange has decided to comply with the ruling.
What Happens Next?
Following the council’s rejection, Grange has accepted the decision and plans to remove the railings. However, he is considering an appeal or replacing the fence with bushes to maintain some level of separation around his property.
This case highlights ongoing tensions between personal property rights and council planning restrictions, raising questions about how rigidly such rules should be enforced—especially for minor installations like a low metal railing.
As similar disputes continue to arise across the UK, many homeowners are left wondering: Should councils take a more flexible approach to small-scale modifications, or should strict planning rules always take precedence?
