In June 2016 the rear of the original 14 Clinton Road collapsed into excavations for a proposed basement extension

In June 2016 the rear of the original No 14 Clinton Road. Penarth collapsed into excavations for a  basement extension.

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.

The proposed front and rear of the entirely new No 14 Clinton Road . It was proposed to built a subterrenean basement in an already-excavated pit in the rear garden - a pit into which the rear half of the original house had collapsed

The proposed front and rear of the proposed entirely new No 14 Clinton Road . It was proposed to built a subterrenean basement in an already-excavated pit in the rear garden – a pit into which the rear half of the original house had collapsed

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

Dr Sid Gautam is taking his appeal against the Vale of Glamorgan Council to the Planning Inspectorate

Dr Sid Gautam  appealed against the Vale of Glamorgan Council refusal of planning permission but his appeal has been rejected by the Planning Inspectorate

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.”

The original No14 Clinton Road was built in the 1920s and fitted in with the street scene

Two views of the original 1920’s vintage No14 Clinton Road  – before it collapsed

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.

The site of 14 Clinton Road . Vale planners said the proposed new house would overshadow neighbouring properties

The site where No 14 Clinton Road once stood. Vale planners claimed the proposed new house would overshadow neighbouring properties – but the Planning Inspector rejected that part of the argument

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.

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address dmj@newsnet.uk . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Rich says:

    That would make a nice car park

  2. Peter Church says:

    Replicate the old house, then re-apply for planning to have a new basement added.
    Isn’t this what “plastics” industry to all the time fill and then refill.

  3. cllr clive williams MBE says:

    On behalf of the local residents and the People of Penarth in general. I am delighted this appeal has been refused. As the ward councillor (now Independent,) I was involved from day one, when I voted against the original planning application, and monitored the “dealings” on this site, with great misgivings together with various residents, i have kept a photographic record, and sent strong protests to the Vale planning and the appeals Inspector.
    The loss of this house in (Clinton Road ) has left an open scar on a prime road in Penarth.
    This has caused major upset to many people, and I am pleased justice has prevailed , but the scar still remains, and I wish I had the power to get this house rebuilt as the original.

    • Anne Greagsby says:

      Great work! I also wish you could get this house rebuilt as the original.

      • Modernist says:

        How does that work Anne? Will you pay for it? Or maybe the Councillors can all contribute by repaying their “site visit” expenses. Just a thought………

    • Gretchla says:

      Please do not be so presumptuous to think that you are speaking ‘on behalf of the People of Penarth’. You are not.

      • Bev Boyle says:

        Cllr Wiliams is certainly speaking on behalf of immediate residents, well said and thank you for supporting. It has indeed left a huge scar.

      • Chris David says:

        Oh for once I think he may speak for most. All reasonable and suspicious people anyway. As for who will pay for it- well the good Doctor of plastics of course. He’s good on cosmetics- isn’t he? 🙂

  4. St Augustine's says:

    I feel sorry for the neighbours who have had to put up with all the noise, mess etc which it appears will be contouring for a while

    • Mark Foster says:

      Forget Clinton Road, you lot should think about the proud working class families who used to live happily in Grangetown, Riverside, Canton, Splott, East London, South London, Birmingham, Leicester, Sheffield – in fact every town and city in the UK. These are the people who have seen their wages and living standards deliberately cut to the bone by you know who. The Labour and Tory parties are not going to help them.

  5. Can I say that the Planning Inspector has made an excellent decision and has listened carefully to the concerns of neighbours and local councillors.. As one of the Ward Councillors for Plymouth, I would thank all those who were in contact with us, and who expressed their worries about inappropriate development. This would have been exactly the wrong type of development for Clinton Road, and we expect better things of such developers in the future.

  6. Ian Palmer says:

    Don’t get carried away. The battle is won but the war continues. There will be another application!

    • Dave says:

      Of course there will be further applications, its not like its going to be left as is !
      Something a bit smaller perhaps a bit like what as there……

      • Joe blow says:

        A house built exactly like one which was there, built with modern insulation and heat recovery technology built in would be a real asset, I believe.

  7. Rt Hon Anthony Charles Lynton Blair says:

    When I have sorted out the Middle East and Brexit I will do all that I can to get this house rebuilt in Penarth, I will even ask the Lord when next we meet.

    Must go, as I feel the hand of hypocrisy on my shoulder.

    Yours as ever,

    • Rt Hon Anthony Charles Lynton Blair says:

      I forgot to say that I charge £10,000 per hour and a speaking engagement will cost a minimum of £300,000 for 30 minutes.

      Classic Labour 4 all seasons

  8. CelticMan says:

    Good news – arrogance does not always prevail even in 2017. I just feel sorry for the neighbours.

  9. Louise says:

    Here’s hoping common sense continues to prevail with any future planning applications. Good news for now, but still a concern for the neighbours.

  10. Zapper says:

    Just as well he’s not “lacking in will and money” he’s going 2 need lots of both! When eventually a new house is built the atmosphere with the neighbors is going 2 b frosty I suspect…..

  11. James says:

    The problem is that the planning authorities show complete inconsistency in their decisions in these Conservation areas. Look at what they did to the property 1 Lower Cwrt Y Vil Road in a commanding location in the Conservation Area. They allowed 2 square blocks to be built on the front and back of this house that do absolutely nothing to keep the character of the Edwardian property. The neighbours there I heard had a terrible time with no consultation and damage to their property from the building works. Yet a few doors down on Archer Road, the owner of a property was forced to reduce the height of a simple wooden fence because it wasn’t in keeping with the Conservation Area!! Complete inconsistencies. No wonder the owner of Clinton Road thinks he has a chance of appealing.

  12. Paul says:

    Seems like his constructive surgery wasn’t a success, so now he’s trying to do a patch up job. I think hes had a skin-full now. Why did he buy it, if he didn’t like it.
    Its cosmetic at the end of the day.
    Home is where u make it, now he ain’t got one. He should be forced to get it rebuilt to the original. So the blot on the landscape can be healed..

  13. Sensible human says:

    God help me, this is exactly what is wrong with Penarth, small minded busy bodies who can’t see past the fact that this man is a cosmetic surgeon. No more puns please …. They’re not funny !!!!😡

  14. I recall many years ago in the town I used to live in that developers pulled down by mistake a listed building in the town centre. The building was from the Georgian Period and so the developers were ordered to rebuild the building and to make it as close as they could to the original by re-installing Georgian Period windows . It did not end up a carbon copy of the original but the outside appearance was very much like it.

Comments are closed.