A HEARTBROKEN homeowner has been ordered to tear down her garden fence by a barmy council even though not a single neighbour complained.
Physiotherapist Caterina, 51, had her smart terraced home’s corner plot garden given a makeover and replaced her original boundary structure with a plain wooden fence.
The Sun visited Town House Road in Littleborough, Greater , and chatted to dozens of residents after the local authority callously demanded she tear down the new structure.
Not one neighbour had any objection to the fence – even those living directly opposite Caterina.
Hard-working Caterina said: “We are absolutely heartbroken. I am without words, just don’t know what to say.
“We are the kind of people, who keep ourselves to ourselves and would never have complained if anyone had a bigger fence, bigger tree.
“It’s ridiculous and we have spent so much on it. Even the lady next door thinks it’s an improvement.
“Around here there are brick walls, high trees and higher fences, but they are taking into consideration our fence because of the street scene.
“We put in an appeal and their response is every case is taken into consideration individually. We have had sleepless nights with this.
“I don’t mind the higher trees and couldn’t care less about the higher fences. I am now hoping they may say lower it to a metre.
“There was a fence previously there. Just hope we get the opportunity to lower it.”
Next door neighbour Ann Greenhalgh, 81, said: “I’ve no objection at all. Caterina is a nice lady.
“I’ve never had any problem with the fence next door. They shouldn’t have to remove it.” And, retired garage owner Marilyn Mason, 78, who walks past the fence regularly on the way to the shops, said: “I’ve never noticed it as out of place in any way.
“People should be given the right t a bit of privacy if that’s what they’d like. I see nothing at all wrong with it.”
Computer student Abdul Khan, 23, who lives across the street directly opposite the fence with his family, said: “I’ve no objection and nobody in the house objects.
“I cannot understand why anybody would want it taking down.”
Next door Tom Price, 37, and his wife Alice, who equally have a clear view of the fence both wrote to the council giving the erection their support.
Some neighbours even supported the fence, writing to the council to say they had no issue with the structure.
Research associate Tom said: “It’s not offensive at all. We did a letter in support for them.
“People should have the right to privacy and security. The hedge on the opposing corner was three times that height.
“We really have no problem with it – it’s not going to grow any taller. It’s a wooden fence how do you take exception to it.
“The councillors seem to have more of an issue then the people round here. I looked into it and it’s not clear that it requires planning permission.”
Meanwhile, Alice – who has lived in the terrace opposite for 10 years – added: “I have no problem with it – round the corner there are people with much higher fences.
“There are also plenty of gardens with no fences that are eyesores. It’s weird that it’s caused such an issue.”
Retired cleaner Judith Eaton,65, who lives on the end of the same terrace as Caterina, said: “We have no problem with it. It isn’t an eyesore at all.
“We had no issue with it at all – it’s lower than the wall at the rear.
“At the weekend we were caught up in riots in Milan – then you come back here and the council are causing a fuss about a fence. It makes no sense with what’s going on in the world.”
Colette Magill, 48, was another resident astounded that the council could take so much time over the unobtrusive fence.
Colette said: “I saw them putting it up about a year ago. It’s completely unobtrusive – there’s nothing wrong with it at all.”
Council refused Caterina’s application for retrospective planning permission for the 1.55m high boundary fence.
Standing about twice as high as the original the structure surrounds her home on Town House Road, Littleborough.
She appealed the council’s decision and this week was rejected yet again, this time by a planning inspector.
The planning inspector stated: “The main issue is the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the area.
“Boundary treatments in the area are typically low-level and visually permeable, contributing to a sense of openness and allowing the soft landscaping within front gardens to remain appreciable.
“The existing greenery helps to soften the street scene and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.
“The appeal development introduces a close-boarded timber fence. The height, materials and extensive continuous form of enclosure contrasts with the more open and traditional forms of boundary treatment typically found in the locality.
“On site, I observed that due to the prominent corner location, when seen from Park View against the back drop of traditional stone terraces with low-key forms of boundary treatment, the appeal development appears particularly stark and incongruous within the street scene.
“It is acknowledged that there is support from neighbours. One neighbour prefers fencing to hedging as they consider it ensures the pavement remains unobstructed. However, this does not justify the identified harm caused by the appeal development.
“The appeal development provides additional privacy and security to the occupiers. However, any such benefit does not outweigh the identified harm to the character of the area.
“Overall, I find that the appeal development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area and the street scene.”
In refusing the original planning application, the council said: “The installed boundary fence constitutes an unsympathetic and visually prominent form of development which inflicts undue harm on the character and appearance of the application property and the immediate street scene.
“The development fails to respond positively to its context, does not make a positive contribution to local character and would not be well-designed. The proposal therefore represents an unsatisfactory standard of design and appearance.”
