Glasgow listed homeowner says order to remove sunroom and wood-burning stove chimneys is 'nonsense'

A homeowner in Glasgow has spoken of his fury about a “nonsense” order to remove a sunroom and two wood-burning stove chimneys from his property.

Gerard Caughey has lived in the C-listed property in Seton Terrace, Dennistoun, since 1991.

His sunroom was built in 2018 as an extension to his flat on the ground floor of a two-storey terraced house. It contains a wood-burning stove, with a second installed in a workshop in the back garden. Both have flues that he has been ordered to remove.

“Should I just destroy it? …It’s just going to end up in a skip somewhere”
Gerard Caughey

Glasgow City Council argued that the sunroom did not “protect the listed building’s appearance” or “complement” the area’s “period, style and character”.

Planning officers ordered its removal in November following “various” public complaints, along with the chimneys, which they said had “a direct impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties” due to smoke.

“I think it’s nonsense,” Mr Caughey told STV News.

“Most folk I speak with in the area love the smell of the smoke, and I use it very occasionally.

“I’ve also had a complaint about noise when I work from my toolshed, and about a tree being up. I mean that tree has been there for 150 years.

Have your say

Have you been impacted by planning permission? Tell us your story.

“I’ve been here 35 years. When I got the flat, it was a complete shambles.”

Mr Caughey appealed to the Scottish Government to overturn the rulings, but this week they were upheld.

“…removal of the orangery… would restore the character of the listed building…”
Scottish Government reporter

The reporter appointed to investigate by the Government heard that Mr Caughey’s current sunroom replaced a pre-existing orangery which was in a “dangerous condition”.

Mr Caughey’s appeal argued his extension protected the listed building because of its similarity to the original structure.

Mr Caughey said that the window for planning permission was “very small” and that the council had failed to respond to a query about retrospective planning applications.

He argued that the extension had been completed six years before the enforcement notice, that a prior notice against the flues had been dismissed, and that “quality” Spanish hardwood shipped from abroad had been used.

The council said the previous notice was not withdrawn, that the sunroom was “incongruous” with the listed building and contributed to “overdevelopment”, and the flues were not “a sufficient distance” from neighbouring properties, so a planning application would be refused.

The Scottish Government reporter decided that the sunroom and chimneys required planning permission and breaches had occurred.

To keep his sunroom and chimneys, Mr Caughey’s only option now is to challenge the rulings at Scotland’s highest court – the Court of Session. But this can only be done on a point of law.

The grounds could include a claim that the Government reporter misunderstood important evidence or didn’t take it into account.

The Scottish Government describe this as a “complex legal process”.

Mr Caughey admitted it’s likely his work from the past five years is going “to end up in a skip”.

“The house is done with cast iron everywhere, proper materials from Spain,” he said, “I think it’s fabulous.

“I’d hate to take it down. It’s near impossible.

“I have no idea where to start. I mean, look at it. Should I just destroy it? That’s what it looks like I’m going to have to do. It’s just going to end up in a skip somewhere.

EXPLAINER

What are your rights for building in your own home or garden?

Everything you need to know after family ordered to tear down £10,000 fence and summerhouse.

“I don’t know why, it’s not doing anything. You can’t even see the garden from out in the street.

“It’s not causing anyone harm or anything. I didn’t think it would be a big deal.”

The Scottish Government reporter, Simon Bonsall, refused to grant listed building consent for Mr Caughey’s extension.

“While the effect of the orangery on the setting would not be harmful, I consider that the orangery through its design, location and materials would… not be in keeping with the character of the listed building,” he concluded.

“I consider that the removal of the orangery… would restore the character of the listed building to its state prior to the orangery having been built.”

Glasgow City Council has been contacted for comment.