The Edwinstowe fence appeal has ended with Newark and Sherwood District Council’s enforcement notice being quashed, even though the inspector agreed that the 1.8-metre boundary fence did not qualify as permitted development. This is an unusually useful decision because the landowner lost the permitted-development argument but still secured planning permission under a different enforcement appeal ground.
Inspector Elizabeth Pleasant’s decision, dated 20 October 2026, concerned the boundary of a corner property at 2 Birkland Drive, Edwinstowe, Nottinghamshire. The council’s notice, issued on 29 September 2025, required the fence to be lowered to no more than one metre, with 180 days to comply. The appellant challenged the notice under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on several grounds.
For homeowners and advisers, I would keep two questions separate: whether a boundary treatment needed express planning permission in the first place, and whether it is acceptable development for which permission should now be granted. The Edwinstowe fence appeal is a clear reminder of why that distinction matters.
The Edwinstowe fence appeal and the highway test
The landowner argued that the fence was sufficiently set back from roads used by vehicles and therefore benefited from Part 2, Class A of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (GPDO). That class normally permits fences up to two metres, but a new fence adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic is ordinarily limited to one metre for premises of this kind.
The appellant supplied measurements showing setbacks of about 4.4 metres at Mansfield Road, 2.1 metres at Birkland Drive and three metres around the corner radius. Those measurements were not disputed by the council. There was also an argument that the newly erected fence was no higher than the hedge that preceded it.
The inspector rejected the hedge comparison as a route to permission. The GPDO provision dealing with maintaining, improving or altering an existing means of enclosure is not a general permission to erect an entirely new fence merely because a hedge of similar height once stood there. The proposed works were the erection of a fence, not maintenance of that earlier boundary treatment.
The Edwinstowe fence appeal therefore turned on the meaning of adjacent to. The GPDO does not set a fixed distance in metres. The inspector treated adjacency as a matter of fact and degree, asking how the enclosure actually related to the carriageway and intervening land.
Why a two-metre gap was still adjacent
Along Birkland Drive, the fence stood approximately two metres from the kerb and aligned with the back of the pavement. There was no intervening public open space, verge or dominant street furniture separating it from traffic. It was a boundary treatment closely associated with the highway scene even though it did not directly touch the carriageway.
That was enough. The inspector concluded that the fence was adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic and therefore exceeded the applicable one-metre permitted-development limit. She treated the enclosure as one operation: where part of a single newly erected fence breached the relevant restriction, it could not be treated as wholly permitted by selectively considering only sections farther from the road.
Consequently, the appellant’s ground (c) case, which argued that no breach of planning control had occurred, failed. The Edwinstowe fence appeal does not establish that a tall fence beside a pavement is lawful automatically, and it would be a serious mistake to present it that way.
Retrospective permission nevertheless granted
Ground (a) was a different question. Through this route, a planning application is deemed to have been made for the unauthorised development. The inspector assessed whether the existing fence was acceptable in planning terms, principally its effect on local character and appearance.
The fence comprises timber panels with concrete supports and a plinth, about 1.8 metres high. It is prominent at the corner of Mansfield Road and Birkland Drive, but the inspector saw a neighbourhood with a varied mixture of boundary treatments, including hedges, stone and brick walls, and fences of different sizes. The timber had weathered to a muted silver colour, and nearby properties displayed comparable enclosures.
Despite its prominence, the fence did not dominate local views or appear incongruous. The property remained visible above it and the enclosure lined up with neighbouring boundaries. The inspector found no material harm to the street scene or conflict with the development plan as a whole, including Core Policy 9 and development-management design policies. The scheme was assessed as acceptable sustainable development under the August 2026 national policy framework.
As a result, the Edwinstowe fence appeal succeeded on ground (a). Retrospective planning permission was granted for the erected fence and the enforcement notice was quashed. There was no need for the inspector to decide the remaining arguments about the notice’s requirements or compliance period.
What this means for fence planning advice
When checking a boundary fence, establish its exact height and location, whether it is a new structure or an alteration to an existing enclosure, and what sort of highway it adjoins. A grass verge, pavement or short physical separation is not a guaranteed way around the one-metre rule. A fence can be sufficiently close to the vehicular highway without touching the tarmac.
Equally, a breach of permitted-development restrictions does not necessarily mean the fence must be removed or shortened forever. Express planning permission is a separate route, and an enforcement appeal under ground (a) can test the planning merits. Success depends on the site, local character, visual effect and development plan, rather than on a general entitlement to retain every unauthorised fence.
That practical distinction is why the Edwinstowe fence appeal deserves attention. Our guidance on replacing a hedge with a fence explains the initial planning rules, while the guide to enforcement appeal grounds sets out the different statutory arguments.
This was an English enforcement appeal, not a court judgment. The decision is recorded by the Planning Inspectorate as APP/B3030/C/25/3375131 and is also available via AppealBase.
0 Comments