An explosive neighbourhood row over a 2ft fence in Totton has highlighted a dispute between a homeowner and Hampshire County Council — and thorpe st andrew school is not referenced in the available account of the conflict.
What happened on Itchin Close?
Verified facts: Phil Edwicker has maintained a fence on his property on Itchin Close since 2002. The current fence, installed during Covid, replaced the earlier boundary. The structure is described as approximately 2ft high and equipped with LED lights and stainless steel wires. When Mr Edwicker applied successfully for permission in 2023 to extend his home, neighbour Tim Goodman complained to Hampshire County Council that the self-built fence had been constructed on public land. Hampshire County Council has said the fence is affecting the verge and footway and set a deadline of March 11 for removal of part of the fence. Mr Edwicker removed three posts on a “temporary basis” after that direction.
Mr Edwicker is identified as the managing director of a lift company. He asserts the fence stands on his land, that neighbours have no objection, and that he did not previously apply for planning permission for the fence now in question. He describes the fence as a personal project into which he has invested time and money and for which he expresses clear pride of ownership.
How does Thorpe St Andrew School factor into this local planning dispute?
Verified facts: The material provided contains no reference connecting Thorpe St Andrew School to this dispute. No statement, action, or document in the available account links the school to the fence on Itchin Close, the complaint by Tim Goodman, or Hampshire County Council’s position that the fence affects the verge and footway.
Analysis: Placing the school name into public discussion of this case without evidence would conflate unrelated institutions and local neighbour disputes. The absence of any mention of Thorpe St Andrew School in the available record is itself a relevant fact: it signals that the enforcement action, complaint and responses are confined to the householders involved and the county authority. That separation matters when judging whether additional stakeholders or public-interest institutions are implicated.
What should the public know next?
Verified facts: Mr Edwicker says Hampshire Highways Authority has not proved the land belongs to them, describing it as “their word against mine. ” He contends the fence presents no risk to anyone other than an immediate neighbour, who he says has no problem with it. Hampshire County Council maintains the fence affects the public verge and footway and instructed partial removal by a set deadline. The fencing first appeared on the property in 2002; the current version was installed during Covid; planning permission granted in 2023 related to a home extension, not prior fencing.
Analysis: Viewed together, the facts present a narrow but telling clash: a long-tenured homeowner who treats a boundary feature as a personal project, a neighbour who escalated the matter to the county, and a highway authority invoking protection of public verge and footway. The tension lies less in the height or aesthetics of the fence than in competing claims of land ownership and in how local authorities choose to enforce encroachment on public highway space. The temporary removal of posts by Mr Edwicker and the county’s fixed removal deadline frame a near-term administrative outcome; they do not, in the available record, resolve the underlying question of title to the land at issue.
Accountability conclusion: The files show named individuals and named authorities at odds over a narrow physical feature. For public clarity, the county authority should publish the basis for its assertion that the fence encroaches on public highway land and set out the evidentiary path by which ownership or jurisdiction will be determined. Mr Edwicker’s decision to contest removal while acknowledging partial dismantling underscores the need for clear documentary proof from the highway authority and a transparent remediation process. The available material contains no evidence that Thorpe St Andrew School is connected to the dispute, and that absence should be noted in any further coverage or official statement about the case.
