No 80 Victoria Road had been completely swathed in plastic sheeting – making it impossible to see what kind of building was taking  shape behind the scenes.

With the plastic sheeting removed, the stark box-like design of the newly-redeveloped No 80 Victoria Road can be seen for the first time

Plastic sheeting which completely enveloped a large house at No 80 Victoria Road during extensive redevelopment has now been removed – revealing a stark office-like modern box  – totally different from the original arts-and-crafts style house which was there before .

The property is one of the one of the largest houses in Penarth and stands in a prominent site opposite Stanwell School playing fields with a number of other Edwardian period dwellings – but is actually outside the architecturally sensitive Penarth Conservation Area .

No 80 Victoria Road as it was before the redvelopment began. No 80 Victoria Road as it was before the redvelopment began.

No 80 Victoria Road as it was before the redevelopment began.

In November 2015  planning permission was granted for a “two storey extension and modifications to all elevations”.

Major renovation works have now been under way for some time at the property and – until now – the whole building has been  swathed in scaffolding and plastic sheeting – making it impossible to see from the road .

Last year the  Vale of Glamorgan’s planning department  launched an Enforcement Investigation into the development regarding an allegation of “Unauthorised development” at the address. In the event no breach was discovered and the investigation was closed on May 3rd 2016.

Later a further planning application was made for “First floor bedroom extension above existing garage” but this was refused by the Vale Council   

The proosal to add a bedroom above the existing garage at 80 Victoria Road has been refused by Vale planners

A proposal to add a bedroom above the existing garage at 80 Victoria Road was refused by has been refused by Vale planners last year

The Vale Planning Officer had ruled that “The proposed extension by reason of its scale and siting, on the primary elevation represents an unsympathetic addition to the existing dwellinghouse that would result in visual harm to the character of the wider street scene and the host dwelling.”  The ruling said the proposal was considered contrary to council policy and guidance.

The delegated Vale planning officer dealing with the application commented  “By reason of its size, siting and proximity to neighbouring properties, it is considered that the proposal represents an overbearing and insensitively sited form of development, which would unacceptably impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers with particular reference to number 82 Victoria Road. “

However the owner  – Mr Lloyd Kidby – did not accept the Vale Council’s view, appealed to the UK Planning Inspectorate – and won .

The Planning Inspectorate’s inspector said that Overall, I consider that the proposed extension would have an acceptable presence and would not harm the street scene’s character or appearance. The proposal pays regard to the context of the local built environment and satisfactorily complements the local character of buildings and open spaces.”

Some local residents are highly critical of the planning inspector’s adjudication . One said the revamped house  “ looks ugly among all the lovely Victorian/Edwardian classic housing style on that road.”


About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address . 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. Dan says:

    It’s downright hilarious – all these people piling in to say they like it – as though they understand better than others – and sneering at those who don’t.
    Give it 20 years and this house will be as laughable and stereotyped as corner baths, granite surfaces, central aisles in kitchens and Abigail’s Party.
    It’s a monument to the crass and try-hard aspiration of our times but in Penarth people think it’s “stylish”. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 Someone, please, take me to A&E now for stitches in my sides.

  2. Jo says:

    Reading all you comments has literally made my day! How pathetic and jealous are people these days! Love how you are all chatting among yourself! I think you people need to seriously stop wasting time on things that have nothing to do with you! Do you have to live there? NO! There is a big wide world out of penarth people. Waste your time on things that matter, there are children dying of hunger in the world and your worrying about a house that’s been built on a plot of land that these people own.
    I will be outside the property at 9am Saturday 21st April. If you still have something to say….come and say it to my face! Not hide behind a computer screen!!! Get a life people or see you in the morning!!

    • Jimbo says:

      9 AM is a bit early for me, will you be there long?

      • Tim says:

        I should be able to get there for 9am and have plenty to say on the subject so if you get a jiggy-on, Jimbo, you’ll catch us. Looking forward to a frank exchange of views…

    • Chris David says:

      Another holier t t writer that doesn’t understand the concept of irony? Talking of hiding- who are you “Jo” and did you know they have a discount for baked beans on toast in James Sommerin Saturday mornings? You could pop in and stoke up before your big fight(s) 🙂 You do sound fun.

    • Peter Church says:

      So you are the home owner, or should we say the property investor 🙂
      As this house will be on the market in less than a year.

      • Eyes and Ears says:

        Would be a nice twist to all this. If the owner doubled his money he could then go and build another house you wouldn’t like.

      • Seth says:

        Money, money, money, Eyes and Ears. Is that all you think about?

  3. goodnight irene says:

    I quite like it! (Doing my bit for the push to 100 comments…)

  4. Rich. says:

    This is media at its worst.

    You have allowed, in fact with moderation you have gleefully willed this whole piece into becoming a spiteful assault on a family’s choice of home. This whole debate is nothing more than playground name calling and bullying.

    Has the owner built this without permission? No, it was approved and built according to regulation. Hold the process responsible, not the person following the rules.

  5. Sian says:

    Get a grip people. It’s just a house! It’s not going to affect the house prices of the neighbours and I’m sure the owners aren’t going to read all of your sad comments and decide they’re going to change it back.

  6. Peter says:

    It does seem very rude to be criticising someone’s home but I think the huge number of comments is symptomatic of a wider malaise. Penarth is a town where money rules and those with it often believe they can do as they please, backed by a council which will drop its knickers for planning fees. The result: an ugly, show-offy town with no respect for the past and an obsession with being seen as ‘stylish’ on Facebook.
    The comments here may not be very nice but neither is the town we’ll be handing on to future generations.

    • Jtr69 says:

      Good point. The comments aren’t a dig at the family, I am sure that they are lovely hard working people, but they have selfishly imposed a carbuncle on the town, not least of all the poor neighbours which will be around for years to come, so they deserve the negative outpouring I am afraid.

  7. jo says:

    Jim you lazy toad! Going to have to make it 8.30…got something better I’ve been asked to do

  8. Tom Fletcher says:

    If you wish to live a house built in contemporary style and you go through all the correct procedures and gain approval, even if you had to go to appeal, then surely you are entitled to do so. The fact that many people do not seem to understand the planning process seems to bring about hysteria, frothing at the mouth and abuse from those who happen not to like something. Penarth seems particularly prone to this sort of thing judging by the cascade of puerile, spiteful abuse and the gross distortion and exaggeration this matter has provoked. The houses along this length of road were not classic Victorian and Edwardian buildings and, not that it matters, mostly looked as if they were built the wrong way round, the area is not under an Order of Conservation and there are plenty of targets for those who wish to protect Penarth’s heritage. By all means offer reasoned and controlled comment but not this viciousness and juvenile stupidity.

    • TF says:

      Well said Tom, if you take a picture of the opposite side of the road
      the OAP flats look an even bigger eyesore, it all seems like a personal
      attack on the owners, perhaps a bit of jealousy or just miserable people
      living in the past, before all hell breaks loose I AM A PENATH RESIDENT
      OF OVER 50 YEARS

      • Will says:

        In for a penny is it, TF?
        Hey, if the flats are an eyesore, let’s add another eyesore, and then, before you know it, another house will go and it’ll be a box in its place, and then another, and another, and people like you can go on accusing anyone who mentions it of being jealous and miserable.
        Just keep ’em coming with no thought for what the place ends up looking like for future generations.Pull up the ladder, Tom Fletcher and TF are on board.
        I wonder what that kind of mentality makes you?

    • Chris David says:

      Baked beans at Sommerin? Ready for the big fight? You’ll have plenty of offers given your spiteful dissing of the neighbouring houses heh.

  9. Frank Evans says:

    Out of keeping and wrong for this area. Bit like Stephen Doughty really.

  10. Jack says:

    The fact this design was allowed to go ahead, and in this area, really is quite dreadful and utterly representative of the feel of this town.

  11. Victoria road resident says:

    Victoria road resident – Kate I think u will find that the “ugly dormer that was slapped on it” as you say was what the vale planning department requested as it needed to be in keeping with neighbouring properties so I was told – if you look at the very end property their attic rooms look very much the same and as for it being a “faux Victorian property” that is also what was requested by the planners in the 1950’s – how times and laws have changed!!! Maybe u should do your research before expressing a not very nice or correct opinion on the original dwelling – and I don’t think it is really the original house that this is about do you that blended in with the surrounding properties. All that said I hope the new owners will be very happy give it a week and they will all be attacking some other poor people – hold your heads up high and enjoy what u have had the courage to do and that is move with the times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s