Retrospective planning permission for terracing works, retaining walls and boundary fencing on a residential property adjacent to the Green Belt in Bristol. Approved with no changes required.
Our client owns a residential property on the edge of Bristol, with the rear garden backing onto the Green Belt. The garden slopes significantly from the house down towards the rear boundary, and the client had carried out terracing works to make the outdoor space usable — constructing a series of retaining walls to create level areas, with new boundary fencing along the edges.
The client had not applied for planning permission before carrying out the works. In common with many homeowners, they did not consider the terracing and fencing to amount to "development" in the planning sense. In fact, works of this kind are classified as engineering operations under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — the retaining walls alter the ground levels and the appearance of the land, which is sufficient to bring them within the definition of development and outside permitted development rights.
During an initial site visit, the council's enforcement officer took the view that the upper terrace — the level area immediately in front of the bifold doors at the rear of the house — would need to be removed. This was the most prominent element of the works and the one most visible from the Green Belt to the rear. For the client, losing this terrace would have made the garden largely unusable and defeated the purpose of the works entirely.
That position was the enforcement officer's initial reading of the case. It was not a formal decision, and it had not been tested against the full planning policy framework. Our job was to demonstrate, through a properly prepared application, that the works were acceptable in planning terms and that no removal was necessary.
The substantive case was stronger than the enforcement officer's initial position suggested. The retaining walls were modest in height, constructed in materials sympathetic to the surrounding area, and set within an established residential garden that was already enclosed by boundary treatments on all sides. The terracing did not project above the existing ground level of the garden when viewed from the Green Belt — it worked with the natural slope rather than building above it.
The key arguments were threefold. First, the works did not harm the openness or visual amenity of the adjacent Green Belt — they were contained within the residential curtilage, screened by existing boundary planting, and did not introduce any structure that read as built form from the Green Belt side. Second, the design and materials were consistent with the residential character of the area. Third, the works improved the usability of the garden without generating any impact on neighbouring amenity that would justify refusal.
We prepared a comprehensive design and access statement that engaged directly with each of the council's likely concerns. The statement:
The strength of the statement was that it gave the case officer a clear, policy-based rationale for approval — including a direct answer to the enforcement officer's initial concern about the upper terrace. Rather than asking the council to overlook the issue, we showed why the issue did not arise on a proper reading of the policy framework.
Alongside the planning statement, we prepared and submitted a full set of scaled architectural drawings — site location plan, block plan, and existing and proposed elevations and floor plans where relevant — giving the case officer a clear, accurate and measurable picture of the development to assess against policy.
Bristol City Council granted retrospective planning permission for the terracing works, retaining walls and boundary fencing with no changes required. The upper terrace that the enforcement officer had initially said would need to be removed was approved as built. The neighbour objection was considered but did not outweigh the policy compliance of the proposal.
Retaining walls, terracing, level changes and boundary treatments are frequently misunderstood by homeowners — many do not realise that works of this kind amount to engineering operations requiring planning permission. If the council has been in touch about retaining walls, terracing or ground-level changes on your property, the first conversation with us is free.
Engineering operations are a common enforcement trigger. Talk to a Chartered Town Planner today.