A homeowner has been refused retrospective planning permission for a 7ft fence after council officers branded its appearance “visually detractive.”

The applicant applied to Buckinghamshire Council to retain the 2.1-metre-high fence at the property in Valley Road, Hughenden Valley.

The application also sought permission to change the use of an adjoining strip of former water-pumping-station land and incorporate it into the home’s residential grounds.

However, the council rejected the plans on July 13, citing the fence’s colour and appearance, encroachment into the Green Belt and a lack of biodiversity information.

Planning documents state that a previously approved dark-brown timber fence had been replaced by concrete-based featheredge fencing along the front and southern side of the property.

The new fence enclosed a strip of land measuring approximately three metres wide and 35 metres long, which the applicant had recently purchased from Affinity Water.

The land had also been resurfaced with loose gravel and chippings.

Council officers said the strip lay outside Hughenden Valley’s established settlement boundary and that incorporating it into the garden would expand residential activity into the open countryside.

The site lies within the green belt and the Chilterns National Landscape, as well as a buffer zone surrounding the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation.

In its decision, the council said: “By reasons of inappropriate colour, design and appearance of the proposed boundary treatment, this is visually detractive and out of character.”

It said the fence harmed the appearance of the residential street scene and the “special qualities, appearance and openness” of the green belt and national landscape.

The council also concluded that changing the use of the additional land amounted to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Its decision notice states: “There is detrimental harm upon the open landscape and intrinsic character of the National Landscapes.”

Officers said the land had not been identified as grey belt and that no “very special circumstances” had been demonstrated to outweigh the harm.

The application attracted objections from a neighbouring resident and Hughenden Valley Residents Association over the encroachment of residential development into the Green Belt.

Ridgeway East councillor David Carroll also supported the neighbour’s objections.

However, a highways officer raised no concerns, concluding that the fence did not affect the publicly maintained highway or obstruct the visibility needed around the access.

The case officer’s report acknowledged that staining both the fence and its concrete base dark brown could have overcome the concerns about its appearance.

However, the proposed change of use remained unacceptable, while the council also said no tree survey, biodiversity net gain report or statutory biodiversity metric had been submitted.

The refusal of retrospective permission does not, by itself, order the fence to be removed. The applicant has the right to appeal the council’s decision to the Planning Inspectorate.