Cosmestic surgeon Dr Sid Gautam – whose detached house in Clinton Road, partially collapsed last year whilst it was being extended – has lost a planning appeal against the Vale of Glamorgan Council.
After his house – at 14 Clinton Road – collapsed during excavations for a basement, Dr Gautam’s contractors cleared the site and he submitted plans for a totally new house on the same site.
His plans, however, were not welcomed by his neighbours who pointed out that the proposed new building would be far larger than the original 1920’s vintage house, would deprive their homes of daylight and would be out-of-place in the existing street-scene of Clinton Road
The Vale of Glamorgan Council’s planning committee refused Dr Gautam’s planning application for the new house.
Undaunted, Dr Gautam then lodged an appeal against the Vale Council with the Planning Inspectorate.
Now the Planning Inspector Clive Sproule has rejected his appeal and Dr Gautam is back to square one with a large plot of land in Clinton Road but without any permission to build anything on it.
Explaining his verdict, the Inspector , Mr Sproule, says“Clinton Road and the streets around it include detached and semi-detached houses, some of which are of substantial scale, that have amenity space to the front, side and rear. This, along with other open areas, street trees and mature garden vegetation, contribute to the suburban character of the locality.”
Describing the original [collapsed and now demolished] dwelling, the inspector says it was a “a hip roofed house that had two storey elevations finished in painted render. Evidence confirms that its scale, design, materials and finishing were sympathetic to other houses in the street scene, and especially those on this section of Clinton Road.”
The proposed replacement dwelling – the Inspector said – would have featured a “mansard roof that enables accommodation in the roof of the building to be more extensive than would otherwise be the case” . The proposed house would have had “a larger and squarer footprint for the first and second floors” which would have significantly increased the “bulk and massing of the dwelling”.
The inspector said he didn’t see any evidence of anything similar in the area and the design of the proposed new house did not reflect any of the characteristic features of the locality.He said that “By failing to be of a scale, form, and character that would be sympathetic to its surroundings, the appeal scheme would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the locality.”
However the inspector’s ruling says “it is not apparent that the visual intrusion would be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions at No.16 [Clinton Road] .Likewise, the circumstances of openings on the western side elevation of No.12 and the amenity space in that location indicate that the proposal’s visual impact would also be acceptable for occupiers at No.12.
The inspector found the “loss of light” would not be “so significant that it would be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers at Nos.12 and 16.”
Dr Gautam had pointed out that the Vale Council had already given planning permission for the extension to the original [1920s vintage] house, comprising a two storey extension to the rear of the house with a flat-roofed dormer, a basement [the digging-out of which appeared to have triggered the collapse] and a single-storey extension.
However the Inspector said “the demolished dwelling no longer exists for the extension to be completed. In any event, each application and appeal falls to be considered on its own merits and consequently, the planning permission for the extension of the previous dwelling does not set a precedent in relation to this case.”
Dr Gautam’s appeal has therefore been dismissed.