Fencing and decking on UK housing developments often get specified late in the design process. They are visible parts of the finished plot but small components of the cost plan, and they tend to come up for discussion after groundworks, roads, sewers and the building envelope have already absorbed the main design attention. By the time fencing and decking are discussed, the scheme’s design assumptions are largely fixed and the choices that remain are operational rather than strategic.
The consequence of that late decision is usually a worse outcome than the same decision taken at design stage. Specifications that should have been integrated with the groundworks programme get added on as separate packages. Plot boundaries set during groundworks turn out to be marginally wrong for the fencing specification later chosen. Levels around the back of the plot that should have been adjusted during civils end up requiring small remedial earthworks to suit the decking the developer’s marketing team has committed to.
Each of these adds cost. Each adds programme time. Each is largely avoidable by deciding fencing and decking specifications at design stage rather than at marketing-asset stage.
The most common late-decision issue is plot boundary detail. Fencing requires a defined post line, an established line of levels along the boundary, and ground conditions that suit the chosen fence type. Closeboard fencing on concrete posts behaves differently from steel mesh on driven posts. Acoustic fencing has specific foundation requirements. Each works best when the groundworks programme has been set up to accept it.
Where the fencing specification is chosen after groundworks completion, the contractor often has to come back to adjust levels, install additional foundation work, or modify drainage that the original groundworks programme had not anticipated. The variations are small individually but cumulative across a multi-plot scheme.
Decking and patio specifications have similar dynamics. Modern composite decking systems require defined substrates and drainage falls. Natural stone patios require deeper foundations than printed concrete. Raised decking platforms require integrated handrail fixings that should have been planned during civils. Where the decision is made late, the result is either substandard installation or rework against the original civils.
There is also a Section 38 implication worth noting. Where fencing is part of the public realm rather than purely plot-private, the highway authority’s adoption requirements include the fencing specification. Late changes that affect adoption can stall the Section 38 sign-off process, which in turn can delay the developer’s overall completion.
GCE’s pre-start coordination with developer design teams now routinely includes fencing and decking specification as a discussion item before groundworks begins. The objective is not to push the developer toward particular products but to make sure the implications of whichever products are chosen are reflected in the groundworks scope.
For developers and QSs working on housing schemes, the practical step is to bring the fencing and decking decisions forward in the design programme. The marketing team needs to commit to specifications in time for those specifications to inform the civils. Where this happens, the cost of fencing and decking installation is at its lowest and the programme runs cleanly. Where it does not, the variations and small remedial works become a recurring overhead.
The same logic applies to landscape and external works generally. Each is best treated as integrated with the groundworks rather than as separate downstream packages. The cost benefit of integration is meaningful enough to justify the additional design effort at scheme stage.
Talk to Globe Civil Engineering To discuss fencing and decking specification on housing schemes on your scheme, contact Globe Civil Engineering on 01223 890727 or email enquiries@theglobegroup.co.uk.
