The Okehampton roadblock appeal has failed after a planning inspector ruled that a wall of heavy concrete blocks across an unfinished road was not a permitted development enclosure. West Devon Borough Council’s enforcement notice, requiring demolition and clearance, was upheld in a decision issued on 20 October 2026.
I think the important point here is not simply that a wall was built without permission. Inspector R Curnow distinguished a structure that physically prevents vehicles passing from a fence or wall that encloses land. That distinction decided the attempted reliance on Part 2 Class A of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).
The appeal, reference 3365085, concerned Kellands Lane at Okehampton, where a partially completed stretch of roadway links parts of a substantial residential development. The appellant, Leander Developments Ltd, argued that the blockwork barrier was temporary, justified by trespass concerns and permitted development. Neither ground of appeal succeeded.
Why the Okehampton roadblock appeal matters for GPDO advice
Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO grants planning permission, subject to limitations, for the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure. Its wording is often paraphrased in general online guidance, but the inspector stressed that the legislation itself, not a simplified web explanation, controls the analysis.
On its face, this was a wall: large interlocking concrete blocks were stacked across Kellands Lane, three blocks high across the carriageway and effectively four blocks high where the road met the adjoining raised footways. The blocks linked hedgerows running away in different directions. But calling something a wall does not establish that it falls within every planning permission for a wall.
The inspector examined whether the barrier, by itself or together with other features, was a means of enclosure. He found that it did not actually enclose land. One hedge marked an edge to undeveloped land, another was retained as a landscape feature beside the development, but the blockwork barrier did not form part of an enclosing boundary.
That factual finding was decisive. The inspector said that, as the structure did not enclose land, it could not qualify under Part 2 Class A. He did not need to go on to work through the additional Class A.1 restrictions. This is an important order of questions: establish that the works fall within the description of development before checking the exclusions and height limits.
A road closed with concrete blocks is not necessarily a fence
The relevant stretch of Kellands Lane was unfinished. Kerbs and footways had been formed, but the final road surface had not been laid, and some manhole covers protruded above the carriageway. The inspector estimated the unfinished section at about 20 metres, much of it beside an undeveloped parcel within the wider housing development.
By the September 2026 site visit the original wall was no longer standing. The appellant said that a member of the public had damaged it with a digger, after which the company removed remaining sections for safety. Blocks and site fencing nevertheless continued to obstruct passage by most motor vehicles, although pedestrians and cyclists could pass through.
The council considered the wall to have been removed, while the appellant maintained that its removal was linked to damage and a temporary stop notice, not voluntary compliance. The inspector did not regard those circumstances as proof that the company had complied with the enforcement notice. He still had to determine whether the notice was justified.
The Okehampton roadblock appeal therefore also illustrates an easily missed enforcement point: an alleged breach may remain a live issue even when the specific structure has changed or been partly dismantled before the inspector’s visit. The decision must be read with the actual notice and the grounds raised.
Temporary works were no answer to the Okehampton roadblock appeal
In the Okehampton roadblock appeal, the appellant repeatedly described the barrier as temporary. Inspector Curnow explained that this did not, in itself, resolve its position under Part 2 Class A, which makes no general distinction between a temporary and a permanent enclosure.
He also considered Part 4 Class A, the temporary buildings and works right. That permission can cover certain structures and works genuinely required in connection with operations being carried out, or about to be carried out, on the land or adjoining land. It is not a free-standing permission for any object that its owner plans to remove one day.
On the inspector’s view the concrete barrier, given its weight and scale, was not moveable as a matter of fact and degree. Even if that assessment were wrong, the developer had not provided evidence that it was required for relevant operations. The temporary-works argument failed on both the characteristics of the structure and the missing operational justification.
These findings matter beyond this particular road. A developer wishing to place security barriers, compounds or concrete blocks on or beside an active building site needs to identify the precise authorised operation, its connection with the proposed works and the actual GPDO class relied upon. Ownership and an understandable security purpose do not automatically create planning permission.
Why the enforcement notice survived the appeal
West Devon issued the enforcement notice on 25 April 2025, alleging construction of a concrete blockwork structure without planning permission. It required demolition of the unauthorised structure and removal of blocks and debris from the land, with a compliance period of seven days.
The company appealed under section 174(2)(c), arguing that no breach of planning control had occurred, and under ground (f), alleging that the steps required went beyond what was needed to remedy it. The ground (c) argument failed because neither of the suggested permitted development rights applied.
Ground (f) fared no better. The appellant had not explained how the demolition and clearance requirements were excessive, and the inspector saw no obvious alternative steps that would remedy the breach. A suggestion that the wall should be permitted to remain was in substance an argument about its planning merits, not about the proportionality of enforcement steps.
That last point is worth emphasising. There was no ground (a) appeal, and therefore no deemed planning application before the inspector. He could not grant retrospective planning permission or weigh the asserted benefits of keeping the road blocked. Assertions about trespass, insurance and human rights did not turn either of the legal grounds pursued into a merits appeal.
What advisers should take from the decision
There are two separate GPDO lessons. First, test the statutory description of the structure, not merely whether it resembles an everyday fence or wall. Second, if relying on a temporary-works right, retain credible evidence of the underlying operations and why the structure is actually required for those operations.
There is also an enforcement lesson: choose and evidence the right section 174 grounds. Arguments that a structure helps with security may support a planning case in an appropriate appeal, but they cannot replace evidence that an existing permission covers the works. The appellant’s legal grounds did not allow a wider balancing exercise.
For comparison, Planning Geek has separately reported an Edwinstowe fence enforcement appeal in which the inspector took a different route through the legal and planning questions. Reading the two together shows why the exact physical circumstances, statutory class and appeal grounds matter more than labels such as ‘fence’ or ‘temporary wall’.
The Okehampton roadblock appeal is an English inspector’s enforcement decision, not a court judgment and not a new nationwide legal rule. Its practical value is as a worked example of how the GPDO’s words are applied to a particular barrier and why failure to prove an exemption can leave a notice standing.
Decision: Planning Inspectorate appeal APP/Q1153/C/25/3365085, dated 20 October 2026, also available via AppealBase. The relevant statute is SI 2015/596 as amended. Territorial scope: England.
0 Comments