Latest news with #Caughey
Glasgow Times
20-07-2025
- General
- Glasgow Times
Glasgow homeowner ordered to remove sun room from property
Glasgow City Council served two enforcement notices on a flat at 1 Seton Terrace as officials said the structures, installed without permission, were out of character and affecting neighbours. The owner, Gerard Caughey, appealed to the Scottish Government in a bid to overturn the rulings, but they have now been upheld. A sun room, or orangery, was built in 2018 as an extension to the mid-19th century two-storey flat while the two flues – for a wood-burning stove within a workshop in the garden – were installed in a lane to the back of the property. Council officials said both the flues and the sun room require planning permission while listed building consent is needed for the extension. They ordered their removal in November last year following 'various' public complaints, as the flues have 'a direct impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties' due to smoke. Officials also said the sun room does not 'protect the listed building's appearance' or 'complement the… period, style and character'. (Image: Appeal documents) But Mr Caughey, who claimed he was only aware of one complaint, appealed. A reporter was appointed by the Scottish Government to investigate the case. A representative for the owner said he had reinstated a single-storey extension at the same 'height and scale' as an original orangery, which had been part of the property when it was purchased in the 1990s but was removed as it was in 'a dangerous condition'. The appeal argued the extension had been completed six years before the enforcement notice was issued and that it protected the listed building 'due to its similarity to what was there originally'. It added 'quality' Spanish hardwood had been used and a 'sympathetic approach' was taken. The owner's appeal also claimed the council had failed to respond to a query about retrospective planning applications, and a prior enforcement notice relating to the flues had been dismissed. A letter of support for the extension was provided by Brian Johnston, planning convener on Dennistoun Community Council. It stated the work had been 'carried out with a sympathetic regard for the original building' and the 'workmanship, design and materials' were of 'high quality'. In response, the council said the previous notice was not withdrawn and the flues are not 'a sufficient distance' from neighbouring properties, so a planning application would be refused. READ MORE: Call to keep 'distinctive' building facade in plan for new Radisson hotel It added permission for the extension also wouldn't be granted, as it is 'incongruous with the listed building and contributes to overdevelopment of the rear area'. The council believes removing the 'unauthorised structure would restore the character of the listed building by restoring the rear wall of the building to its original unobscured state'. The reporter, Simon Bonsall, found permission was required in both cases and that breaches of planning control had occurred. He upheld the enforcement notices. Mr Bonsall also refused to grant listed building consent for the extension. He concluded: '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. '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.' The owner can challenge the rulings at the Court of Session, but only on a point of law.
STV News
18-07-2025
- General
- STV News
Homeowner's fury after 'nonsense' order to remove sunroom and chimneys
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. 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. '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. STV News 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. STV News 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. '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. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Daily Record
17-07-2025
- General
- Daily Record
Glasgow homeowner ordered to demolish sun room by council after neighbours moan
Gerard Caughey appealed to the Scottish Government in a bid to overturn the rulings, but they have now been upheld. A Dennistoun homeowner has been ordered to remove a sun room and two wood-burning stove chimneys from their C-listed property. Glasgow City Council served two enforcement notices on a flat at 1 Seton Terrace as officials said the structures, installed without permission, were out of character and affecting neighbours. The owner, Gerard Caughey, appealed to the Scottish Government in a bid to overturn the rulings, but they have now been upheld. A sun room, or orangery, was built in 2018 as an extension to the mid-19th century two-storey flat while the two flues — for a wood-burning stove within a workshop in the garden — were installed in a lane to the back of the property. Council officials said both the flues and the sun room require planning permission while listed building consent is needed for the extension. They ordered their removal in November last year following 'various' public complaints, as the flues have 'a direct impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties' due to smoke. Officials also said the sun room does not 'protect the listed building's appearance' or 'complement the… period, style and character'. But Mr Caughey, who claimed he was only aware of one complaint, appealed. A reporter was appointed by the Scottish Government to investigate the case. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. A representative for the owner said he had reinstated a single-storey extension at the same 'height and scale' as an original orangery, which had been part of the property when it was purchased in the 1990s but was removed as it was in 'a dangerous condition'. The appeal argued the extension had been completed six years before the enforcement notice was issued and that it protected the listed building 'due to its similarity to what was there originally'. It added 'quality' Spanish hardwood had been used and a 'sympathetic approach' was taken. The owner's appeal also claimed the council had failed to respond to a query about retrospective planning applications, and a prior enforcement notice relating to the flues had been dismissed. A letter of support for the extension was provided by Brian Johnston, planning convener on Dennistoun Community Council. It stated the work had been 'carried out with a sympathetic regard for the original building' and the 'workmanship, design and materials' were of 'high quality'. In response, the council said the previous notice was not withdrawn and the flues are not 'a sufficient distance' from neighbouring properties, so a planning application would be refused. It added permission for the extension also wouldn't be granted, as it is 'incongruous with the listed building and contributes to overdevelopment of the rear area'. The council believes removing the 'unauthorised structure would restore the character of the listed building by restoring the rear wall of the building to its original unobscured state'. The reporter, Simon Bonsall, found permission was required in both cases and that breaches of planning control had occurred. He upheld the enforcement notices. Mr Bonsall also refused to grant listed building consent for the extension. He concluded: '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. '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.' The owner can challenge the rulings at the Court of Session, but only on a point of law.
STV News
16-07-2025
- General
- STV News
Homeowner ordered to remove sunroom and two wood-burning stove chimneys
A Dennistoun homeowner has been ordered to remove a sunroom and two wood-burning stove chimneys from their C-listed property. Glasgow City Council served two enforcement notices on a flat at 1 Seton Terrace. Officials said the structures, installed without permission, were out of character and affecting neighbours. The owner, Gerard Caughey, appealed to the Scottish Government to overturn the rulings, but they have now been upheld. A sunroom, or orangery, was built in 2018 as an extension to the mid-19th-century two-storey flat, while the two flues — for a wood-burning stove within a workshop in the garden—were installed in a lane to the back of the property. Council officials said both the flues and the sun room require planning permission while listed building consent is needed for the extension. They ordered their removal in November last year following 'various' public complaints, as the flues have 'a direct impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties' due to smoke. Officials also said the sun room does not 'protect the listed building's appearance' or 'complement the… period, style and character'. But Mr Caughey, who claimed he was only aware of one complaint, appealed. The Scottish Government appointed a reporter to investigate the case. A representative for the owner said he had reinstated a single-storey extension at the same 'height and scale' as an original orangery, which had been part of the property when it was purchased in the 1990s but was removed as it was in 'a dangerous condition'. The appeal argued the extension had been completed six years before the enforcement notice was issued and that it protected the listed building 'due to its similarity to what was there originally'. It added that 'quality' Spanish hardwood had been used, and a 'sympathetic approach' was taken. The owner's appeal also claimed the council had failed to respond to a query about retrospective planning applications and dismissed a prior enforcement notice relating to the flues. A letter of support for the extension was provided by Brian Johnston, planning convener on Dennistoun Community Council. It stated the work had been 'carried out with a sympathetic regard for the original building' and the 'workmanship, design and materials' were of 'high quality'. In response, the council said the previous notice was not withdrawn and the flues are not 'a sufficient distance' from neighbouring properties, so a planning application would be refused. It added that permission for the extension would also not be granted, as it is 'incongruous with the listed building and contributes to overdevelopment of the rear area.' The council believes removing the 'unauthorised structure would restore the character of the listed building by restoring the rear wall of the building to its original unobscured state'. The reporter, Simon Bonsall, found that permission was required in both cases and that breaches of planning control had occurred. He upheld the enforcement notices. Mr Bonsall also refused to grant listed building consent for the extension. He concluded: '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. '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.' The owner can challenge the rulings at the Court of Session, but only on a point of law. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
LCFA awarded $180,000 from Wyoming to rebuild Fire Station 74
CHEYENNE – Wyoming's top five elected officials voted Wednesday to award $180,000 in emergency mineral royalty grant funding to the Laramie County Fire Authority to rebuild a fire station that burned down in mid-January. LCFA Chief Jason Caughey told state officials a staff member was welding one of the fire trucks in Fire Station 74 a few hours before the fire was spotted. The staff member went home around 4 p.m., three-and-a-half hours before the witnesses driving down Yellowstone Road spotted the fire. 'It appears that where he was welding, it was the ignition source,' Caughey said. Last week, Caughey approached the State Loan and Investment Board (SLIB) to ask for $250,000 in emergency MRG funding. This amount made up the 32% of construction costs to rebuild the fire station that wasn't covered by insurance. The Office of State Lands and Investments, which oversees this grant funding, found this project did not meet the 'emergency' threshold. It deferred the LCFA's application for regular mineral royalty grant (MRG) funding, which would be approved during the board's special meeting in June. The state fire marshal and Wyoming forestry division echoed this recommendation. However, Caughey said LCFA couldn't wait that long for funding. The Laramie County Planning Department utilizes an emergency building permit program in the event of a natural disaster or fire. If the facility is rebuilt within one year, 'it doesn't have to jump through all of the same hoops that a normal building process would.' 'By not being able to complete this project within one year, it's going to cost us and the taxpayers a significant amount more money,' Caughey said. 'To rebuild that same existing station today, I anticipate 25% more.' Without the emergency grant funding, Caughey said the county fire authority would have to take out a loan, and the interest would be paid for by Laramie County taxpayers. An OSLI staff member said during last week's SLIB meeting the application was incomplete, missing two documents. SLIB members agreed to hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday to discuss the matter, once the documents were submitted. In both meetings, State Auditor Kristi Racines asked Caughey if a $100,000 grant would be sufficient. Caughey answered that partial funding 'would be greatly appreciated.' 'It allows us to continue this project moving forward without throwing the bigger wrench of no (state) funding into this project,' he said. State Treasurer Curt Meier asked about the details of the newly constructed fire house, such as installing a fire alarm system that's tied into a central system. Caughey said a centralized monitoring system will be installed, 'which will give us early detection of any events that happened in that building.' Racines moved to grant $180,000 in emergency MRG funding, which passed the board. Caughey later told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle the LCFA will be able to absorb the remaining $70,000 into its current funding mechanisms, without any impact on local taxpayers. 'We're grateful for the support of the State Land Investment Board today, for funding the additional $180,000 toward the rebuild of Station 74,' Caughey said. 'We don't believe the difference that's remaining will have any impact on the project.'
