Council Demands Removal of 'Visually Dominant' Security Fence in Poole
A couple residing in a £1.15 million home in an upmarket Poole suburb have been instructed to dismantle their 6ft garden fence after local authorities declared it "ugly" and "out of character" for the area. Paul and Lisa Toomer erected the substantial wooden barrier to address security and privacy concerns, only to find themselves embroiled in a costly £3,000 dispute with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP).
Security Concerns Prompt Fence Installation
The Toomers, who purchased their property five years ago for over £1 million, decided to install the 6.5ft wooden fence following a series of attempted burglaries in the vicinity. Their decision was further motivated by the construction of a new residence on the road behind their home, which afforded direct views into their garden. Believing they were operating within permitted development rights, the couple proceeded with the installation without seeking prior planning approval.
"We thought we were within our rights," explained Mrs Toomer, 51. "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."
Council Enforcement and Retrospective Application
The conflict began when BCP Council officials visited the property and informed the Toomers that, because their garden borders a highway, regulations permitted only a 3.2ft fence. The couple were instructed to apply for retrospective planning permission. Despite complying and receiving no objections from neighbours, their application was rejected. Council planners argued the fence was "visually dominant" and not reflective of the local character, where properties typically use "dense tree cover" as rear boundaries.
A BCP planning officer stated: "The fencing is clearly visible along this stretch of street and appears prominent due to the height, use of materials and colour. There are no other similar examples of fencing within this stretch of the streetscene."
Refusal to Back Down Amid Enforcement Notices
The Toomers have steadfastly refused to acquiesce to the council's demands, even after losing an initial appeal and receiving multiple enforcement notices. If upheld, these notices would compel them to either remove the fence entirely or reduce its height to one metre—a measure they deem pointless for providing adequate privacy or security.
"It's just a normal garden fence, but they said it's not in keeping, it's ugly, it's completely out of character," lamented Mrs Toomer. "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."
Arguments Over Highway Regulations and Local Precedents
Mr Toomer, a 60-year-old scuba diving instructor, contested the council's stance, pointing out inconsistencies in enforcement. "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," he asserted. "It's funny because the council put these up all over the place and all the council fences look exactly the same as ours."
The couple had considered painting the fence and adding plants to enhance its camouflage but are reluctant to invest further funds if demolition is required. Mr Toomer emphasised their improvements to the property, replacing "ugly, gnarly bushes" and "unkempt wilderness" with a tidy, secure environment. "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," he added.
With nearly £3,000 already expended in what they describe as a "witch hunt," the Toomers await a final appeal decision, though no date has been set. The outcome will determine whether their security measures must be sacrificed for aesthetic conformity in their affluent Dorset neighbourhood.
