A man has lost his battle against a council order to take down a fence from around his house. 

Wayne Smethurst had appealed against Great Yarmouth Borough Council's refusal of his bid to keep the wooden enclosure at Waterland Close in Caister.

He was also fighting the council's enforcement notice to remove the 2m-tall structure which was built around the perimeter of the property, a detached bungalow.

In a decision made in September, the planning inspector dismissed the appeal, stating the fence had a "harmful effect" on the appearance of the neighbourhood.

READ MORE: Woman appeals against council's refusal to convert guesthouse

He also agreed with concerns about the fence's impact on visibility and said a car pulling out of the driveway "could easily prove hazardous to approaching pedestrians".

The inspector was also "mindful", however, that removing the fence, as required by the enforcement notice, would "leave the property vulnerable" and this would be "unacceptable in itself".

He therefore urged both main parties to meet "with a view to reaching an agreement, at least in principle, as to the house’s long term security".

Great Yarmouth Mercury: A retrospective bid to build the fence at a house on Waterland Close in Caister was refused in 2021. A retrospective bid to build the fence at a house on Waterland Close in Caister was refused in 2021. (Image: Google Maps)

READ MORE: Village will have to 'wait and see' on housing bid after building firm collapses

The fence was built in September 2021 without planning permission.

In November 2021, Mr Smethurst applied for retrospective approval - but this was refused in December 2021.

Planners said the fence was out of keeping with the open character of the surrounding area and created a poor relationship between the dwelling and the street.

They also said the fence harmed visibility and had an adverse effect on highway safety.

The enforcement notice was then issued in February 2022.

Two residents had objected to the planning application, raising concerns that the fence disrupted visibility and was a highway safety concern.

They also said it was out of character with the surrounding area and was an "eyesore" that resulted in the loss of a view.