A nursery that was at war with a 'outrageous' council that had purchased to take down a 6ft fence built to secure kids has won its battle.

Imperial Day Nursery, in Westcliff-on-sea, had released an appeal versus Southend Council last year after it ruled that it must get rid of or reduce the height of a substantial fence that towers at the front of the residential or commercial property.

An enforcement notification was provided by the local authority demanding it be ripped down or changed to an optimum height of 3.2 feet within 3 months.

But now, bringing an end to a years-long fight, the nursery has been informed it can keep its fencing as the Planning Inspectorate decided it was not 'prominent' or 'out of keeping' with the character of the regional location and criticised the council for 'unreasonable' behaviour.

When MailOnline had gone to last October, parents had revealed their fury at the council, accusing them of prioritising the 'looks of the street' over the safety of their children.

But neighbours surviving on the domestic street in the seaside suburban area branded the fencing as 'dreadful and unsightly' and desired it took down.

The nursery first became engulfed in the preparation row in 2022 after a problem was made regarding the structure which was put up without correct preparation consents in place.

Fences towering 1.83 m high were erected at the Imperial Day Nursery, in Westcliff-on-sea, to permit kids to play exterior of public view

The nursery has actually won an appeal versus Southend Council after it ruled that it must eliminate or decrease the height of the huge fence at the front of the residential or commercial property

Imperial Day Nursery then lodged a retrospective preparation application, however the council rejected it, claiming it was 'aesthetically prominent and plain' and 'out of keeping' with the surrounding location.

The nursery then stepped up its battle by appealing the council's enforcement action - which has actually caused a success.

Andrew Walker, a planning officer within the Planning Inspectorate, reversed the council's decision after a site see in which he ruled the fence and other structures could remain undamaged, EssexLive reported.

He mentioned in his decision: 'I do not discover that either appeal plan appears aesthetically popular, plain or materially out of keeping within the local context.

'No damage is triggered to the character and look of the website, street scene or area.

'The degree of fencing upon the frontage under both plans is fairly necessary to separate the personal property area from the industrial nursery section.'

The nursery has actually likewise been given a full award of costs versus Southend City board in addition to having the enforcement notification quashed and planning application granted.

The costs decision checks out: 'The Planning Practice Guidance recommends that expenses may be awarded against a celebration who has actually behaved unreasonably and thus caused the celebration getting costs to sustain unneeded or squandered expenditure in the appeal procedure.

'The Council declined the planning application and provided the subsequent enforcement notice on the basis of a single main concern.

'Its case, which continued to be pursued in safeguarding the taking place appeals, was that the appeal advancements considerably hurt the character and appearance of the site, the streetscene and the area more extensively.

'I disagree with the Council on this matter of preparing judgment. That would not by itself be a basis for a finding of unreasonable behaviour.

'However, the local existence of the really substantial and high close-boarded fencing serving the Essex County Bowling Club, with long sections straight abutting the highway - quite near to the appeal residential or commercial property and on the exact same side of Imperial Avenue - does not appear to have been considered at all by the Council in pertaining to its view.

'There is definitely nothing in the officer reports (on each appeal plan) which refers to it.

'Indeed, they say that "The streetscene in this part of Imperial Avenue has a strong open character with low front limit treatments ..." To make that declaration without mentioning, considering or examining the very obvious and significant close-by counterexample was both wrong and unreasonable.

'It seems to me that, had the single main issue in dispute been more effectively examined, there would have been no need for the attract have been made in the very first location which the appellant has been put to unneeded cost.

'I for that reason find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unneeded or squandered expense, as explained in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated which full awards of expenses are justified in regard of both appeals.'

Speaking with MailOnline outside the nursery, moms and dads had previously told of how they felt much safer with the structure being in location.

Parents told how they would feel safer if they fences stayed in place as it obstructs the general public from having the ability to see into the 'baby room' at the front of the building

They say that prior to its usage, complete strangers could quickly peer into the 'child room' at the front of the building, and that the fence also enables children to safely play in the outside location in front of the residential or commercial property.

One mother, Natalie Toby, said: 'I'm a security consultant so from my point of view, it keeps children concealed away from the general public walking past.

'You can't really see where the front door is unless you go all the way down there, so they're keeping gain access to paths great and tucked away.

'The nursery has been here for 30 years so I do not see why the council are using the very same rules that they would to domestic residences.

'New-build schools are being developed with fence lines not different to this, so why are they not allowing this?

'Surely the security of the children is more vital than the aesthetic appeals.'

She told of an event, before the fencing which blocks the window of the front space was put up, when a postman unintendedly dropped heavy parcels through the window of the baby room.

She added: 'So it's not almost keeping it closed off from individuals with harmful intents, it's unintentional things as well.

'They've got vulnerable children in that front space, and having the fence up keeps the babies safe.

'It's absurd, I don't comprehend why the council are being so persistent about it.

'Surely securing children and their security is vital to aesthetic appeals.

'I do not want my child in a space where people can simply stroll past and browse.'

Another parent had actually echoed the exact same concerns, saying: 'As an instructor myself, I comprehend the importance of safeguarding kids, and I would not want the fence to be removed.

'My daughter goes to this nursery and my eldest simply began school but she went here the entire method through.

'It's a brilliant nursery and they've got the very best interest of the kids at heart.

'Prior to it resembling this, you could see into the infant space.

'When my eldest was in the baby space, you could see her, you would be able to wave. But obviously, that's different as a parent than a stranger having the ability to search in.

'It feels a lot more secure now, understanding that no-one can see in or get in easily. It's extremely secure.

'Having the fence likewise indicates they can utilize the outside space for kids. I believe they have Santa there at Christmas and stuff like that.'

She included: 'They do try and make it look as appealing as possible too, so they change it seasonally, so it's all Halloween-themed at the moment.

'I do not think it's an eyesore.'

Southend Council ordered for the fence to be taken down or lowered in height after discovering that it was 'materially out of keeping' with the surrounding area. This has been overturned on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate

The council's enforcement notice for the removal of the fence had actually stated that the height, layout and 'solid look' of the fence deemed it unacceptable for the area.

The choice notification specified: 'The advancement at the site, by reason of its height, layout and extent, and the solid appearance of the fencing within the frontage, appears visually prominent, stark, and materially out of keeping with the generally roomy setting of the surrounding area, and has actually led to considerable harm to the character and appearance of the site, the streetscene and the area more widely.'

But now, the Planning Inspectorate's appeal decision states that the fence does not appear 'extreme' or 'incongruous' and can remain standing.

Talking to MailOnline, one neighbour had actually stated of the advancement: 'It is a bit unattractive. I was impressed they were even permitted to put it up, but ends up they weren't.

'I comprehend why they did it, but planning authorization is preparing consent and you have to abide by it.

'My individual opinion is that it is a bit undesirable. It would have bothered me more if I was ideal next door to it. But even from here, it is unattractive.'

Another neighbour echoed the exact same issues, saying: 'It's not good, it looks dreadful.

'And the planning was retrospective as well.'

While most parents said the fencing made them feel much safer, one moms and dad stated the outside space is extremely rarely used.

She said: 'We're not too troubled in either case. I can understand that some of the neighbours don't especially like it.

'Before it was up, we were funnelled a various way. So truly you would only see into the child room if you were queuing to get your kids.

'So, if you were a stranger not part of the nursery, you would need to actually come off the street, look in a window and be rather obvious about it.

'I know the nursery are saying it's for securing however when it's just the moms and dads having a peek in to see their kids, I don't think that's much of a problem.

'And I've never seen anybody usage that outside area. To my knowledge, it's not actually used.'

Another parent, however, stated he had actually vowed assistance for the nursery who at the time had a petition going.

He said: 'I've really emailed the nursery showing support for their petition.

'It appears like the council is taking a look at the view of the place and the visual appeals than the safety of our kids.

'The entire point was to secure the kids.

'I feel a lot much safer leaving my kid here knowing the fence is up.

'It stops individuals from seeing in and having the ability to take a look at the kids.'

A grandmother choosing up her grand son from the nursery included: 'I believe it's awful. The fence gives a little bit of security for the children.

'It's very unusual that the council are doing this.'

The nursery stated: 'Imperial Day Nursery has successfully protected itself in its disagreement with Southend City Council over the frontage of the residential or commercial property, both Nursery and residential.

'We are thrilled with the result of the appeals including our applications for expenses.

; This matter has hung over the nursery for more than 2 years now and with associated expenses amounting to simply over ₤ 35,000 it has been an extremely heavy financial problem to bear with no assurance of success.

'Other similar kids's nurseries dealt with and experiencing the same may not have had the resources to endure as we have handled to do.

'We feel that our technique has actually been totally vindicated by the appeals inspector.

'As both a service rates and a council tax payer it is incredibly concerning that the council's unreasonable behaviour has actually cost Southend on Sea City Council taxpayers so dearly. We sincerely hope that lessons will be gained from this judgement moving forward and applied appropriately.'

The council have given that acknowledged the Planning Inspectorate's choice.

Cllr Anne Jones, cabinet member for planning, housing, and the local strategy, stated: 'The Council took a balanced decision, recognising the benefits of the fencing for the nursery, while also acknowledging the damage its prominence triggered to local character.

'We respect that the Planning Inspectorate reached a various view on where that balance should lie.'