Retired Couple Face Second Fence Removal Order in Bolton
A retired couple in Greater Manchester have been instructed to tear down a second fence they erected on land opposite their residence, merely weeks after receiving a council order to dismantle a new privacy screen surrounding their own property. David Hopwood, 67, and his wife Denise, 66, invested £2,000 to replace a dilapidated barrier on the edge of a field across from their home in Over Hulton, Bolton, aiming to enhance the neighbourhood's appearance.
Decade-Long Improvements Now Under Scrutiny
The Hopwoods assert they replaced the decaying fence nearly ten years ago, additionally installing a large planter and lighting fixtures to beautify the area. However, they have now been directed by the landowner, Peel Land, to remove the grey fencing and all adornments, citing trespassing on territory that does not belong to them. This development follows closely on the heels of a separate directive from Bolton Council, which demanded the removal of a new 7-foot tall, 82-foot long fence around their backyard, constructed at a cost of £4,500 to replace an overgrown hedge that had become difficult to maintain due to the couple's arthritis.
The couple explained they have dedicated years to maintaining the land where the second fence is located, adding chain link bollards and flower planters that have become a focal point for community displays, especially during Christmas festivities. Mr Hopwood expressed confusion, noting that no issues were raised over the eight years since the fence's construction until recently, suggesting a complaint must have been lodged.
Landowner's Ultimatum and Community Impact
On March 10, the Hopwoods received a letter from Peel Land ordering the removal of the 75-foot fence within 14 days, as it was erected without planning permission. The letter stated, 'It has come to our attention that you have encroached on land owned by Peel. Such encroachments include the erection of a fence, chain link bollards and flower planters. We request that you remove all fixtures and reinstate the registered site boundaries.' Peel Land maintains that the structures were installed without consent and that it is exercising its rights as the landowner.
Mr Hopwood described the situation as devastating, with the couple facing further financial losses from removal costs. He remarked, 'We've had that fence up for eight years now and they've never said anything - why now? Someone's clearly brought it to their attention.' Mrs Hopwood added that the planter was intended to cover an unsightly concrete dump, transforming the area into a visually appealing space.
Council's Stance on Home Fence Dispute
In a related matter, Bolton Council refused planning permission for the fence around the Hopwoods' home, claiming it did not align with the 'character and appearance of the surrounding area.' A council report highlighted that the 2.1-metre high black fence is 'very prominent' and appears 'at odds with the open frontages, low walls and hedgerows of the dwellings opposite.' Despite the couple's arguments about security, privacy, and health challenges like arthritis, the council concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify the fence's height and materials.
The Hopwoods, who offered to pay for a licence to keep the fence in place, have decided not to contest the decision due to financial constraints. Mr Hopwood stated, 'We're not fighting it. We don't know what we've done so wrong, but we can't afford to take it to court. We maintained the land and we put the fence there at our own expense because we wanted to make it look nice.' He further declared that he will cease maintaining the land, leaving the responsibility to the landowners.
Mrs Hopwood echoed their disappointment, saying, 'I'm devastated, we're devastated. We were just trying to do a nice thing for the community.' The couple now faces the additional burden of funding the fence's removal, compounding the stress from the earlier council order.
