A DAD has been ordered to tear down his “oppressive” and “overbearing” 10ft-high fence because it’s “too dangerous”.
But neighbours have backed the dad’s plight, after he argued he put it in place outside his home in Longton in 2022 to protect his young family from a “dangerous and crime riddled” area.
The illegally erected wooden barrier, which stands half the height of the house and dwarves pedestrians walking by, is now subject to enforcement action.
Whilst the householder declined to discuss the fence row, locals rallied around to support his action and branded the council “ridiculous, uncaring and bureaucratic”.
The dad lives in the large house in Longton, near Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, with his wife, young daughter and dog.
He put up the tan panelled fence in 2022 to replace a smaller one and a hedge.
It requires planning permission as it is over a metre height but the householder said he had “no idea” consent was needed.
He put it up at the front of his property on busy Trentham Road, a residential street with rows of shops and small businesses.
He told planners on Stoke-on-Trent City Council he had done so “for the safety of his family”.
But they insist he has to remove it, fearing it could set a precedent with residents taking that “as a free-for-all to put up whatever they wish”.
Locals have hit out at the council for being “so petty”, with hair salon boss Kimberley Grocott, saying: “Who knows what height a fence should be and if it needs planning permission?
“Planners are being ridiculous and very uncaring.
“As a mum of three, and if I was living at that house on a very busy road, I think the fence height is fine. It gives the family privacy.”
Kimberley, 33, who runs KG Hair, which is opposite the semi detached home, told The Sun: “This area is dangerous and crime riddled.
“I don’s see what the issue is. The fence is the same height as the bush at the next door house.”
Kimberley, who revealed she had been the victim of a terrifying attempted armed robbery at her salon in January, added: “Residents and businesses owners must be allowed to protect their properties.
“The council is being so petty.
“The house has a front and back garden and faces the main road. As well as extra protection it gives them protection.
“If the parents are sunbathing in the summer or their kid is running around naked it gives them privacy.”
Kimberly told how a masked raider had entered her premises, while she was tending a client, threatening her at knife point while demanding cash.
She heroically calmed the situation, and he fled.
The 49-year-old local man was later arrested, charged and jailed for six years for armed robbery.
“With the crime going on here everyone is trying to install more security measures,” she added.
Councillors had acted after a complaint from a neighbour about the illegal and “unauthorised” fence which had been erected to replace a lower hedge previously bordering the property.
The fence is three times the height of a legal fence but no planning application was submitted.
Following the sole complaint, the householder submitted a retrospective planning application for a smaller 2.3m fence was but this was subsequently rejected by the authority.
They have now approved enforcement action to remove the fence in line with their officers’ recommendation, who declared it “overbearing in nature and does not relate well to the prevailing character or context of the area” and said that it creates an ‘’oppressive means of enclosure”.
The planning committee had been told that the property owner had erected the fence “for the safety of his family” and did not realise it needed planning consent.
But many locals disagree with the planners’ decision.
A local businesswoman said: “The higher the fence the better.
“The crime rate around here is horrendous and the home owners, who have a young child, want to make sure that no one climbs over into their grounds.
“There is nothing wrong with that fence!”
She added: “Planners are being too bureaucratic. What is the issue? It is the same height as the neighbour’s front hedge and that isn’t being ripped down.”
Her colleague added: “Good on him for putting up a high fence! The only thing i would say is that is could do with a lick of pain or varnish.”
She said: “The rate of crime around here is getting worse. Gangs are walking around the streets in a threatening manner and young lads are being abusive and kicking in doors.”
Cafe owner Susan Brunt said: “The council has rules and regulations but the family has put up a high fence to protect themselves.
“At first when I saw it I thought ‘it’s a little bit high’ but then I got that they had done it for security measures and privacy, and there is nothing wrong with that.”
Her assistant added: “I don’t blame them for having a high fence. The place is full of druggies and burglars.
“Just recently a thief stole a woman’s car which she had left running with her little girl in the back. He drove off in it with the child.”
Retired HGV driver and neighbour Stephen Amison said: “I’ve got no worries with the height of that fence, and I hadn’t even noticed.
“But looking it at I don’t think it is too high. You can never be too safe on a main road.
“I’m 5 feet 10 inches and it is way taller that me but that’s a good thing.
“There’s so much crime, you hear the police sirens going off 25 times a day.”
Planners ruled that not taking action against a clear breach of planning rules would set a dangerous precedent.
Councillor Ross Irving said: “I think it’s pretty clear that we’ve got a duty to uphold what the regulations stipulate.
“This is clearly a breach of those regulations, and I think we have a duty to enforce it, because if we don’t, people will take that as a free-for-all to put up whatever they wish.”
“We have planning conditions for a reason. If we don’t take action on this it sends the wrong message out.”
The council will now serve the property owner with an enforcement notice calling for the fence to be removed.
The house holder declined to comment when contacted by the Sun, with the wife saying: “I am very busy and do not feel the need to discuss this matter.”
We have contacted the council for comment.
