Welcome to CHIS planning

Sutton House, Clifton Down Bristol BS8 3HT (bottom of Canygne Rd)

17 February 10:Dormer finally removed, and work on conservatory started

4 October 09: Dormer and conservatory work still not started
On 4 September 2009, two enforcement notices were served against the unauthorised conservatory and dormer window at the above property.

The first notice requires The complete removal of the conservatory structure and rubblestone plinth beneath, and to remove 2.7m high section of blockwork on property boundary with Auburn House and return the boundary wall to its original height.
The second notice requires the Removal of the unauthorised dormer window in the main roof slope at the rear of the property and reinstatement of the roof to match its original profile and appearance in terms of materials used and detailed execution of the work.

The notices will take effect on 9 October 2009 unless an appeal is made beforehand. Both notices have a compliance period of 2 months so unless an appeal is lodged, Mr Hale will have until 9 December 2009 to meet the requirements of the notice.

CAP (Conservation Advisory Panel) June 09:
The Panel was very disappointed that this application for retrospective consent had been granted. This would set a regrettable precedent.
The front boundary wall had been demolished without consent, Bristol City Council had been notified and enforcement action taken. An application for retrospectiv consent (08/01666/H) including proposals to widen the access and realignment to the centre of the front boundary was submitted. The conservatism officer expressed concern about the repositioning of the entrance way and amended plans were received proposing the widening but in the original location. The officer's report referred to the wall being built with salvaged and new material matching the cxisting, to create an appearance to match prior to demolition. - The further application (09/00298/H) was submitted for a number of items including the conservatory and alterations to the front boundary wall. At the CAP meeting on 17th March the panel stated that the application to alter the front boundary walls construction should be refused because the original form of the wall must be reinstated. In the officer's report it stated that "in terms of finished appearance the front boundary wall was of similar appearance to the original boundary wall that had been removed..." this was incorrect. The wall has not been built with a batter in the lowest two courses to match the original wall and the other adjoining walls to this section of the road. A revised application proposed the widening of the entrance by a metre to 5 metres wide and the relocation to a more central location. In the previous application this was considered to be unacceptable. The report wento say, "although matching the appearance of the original boundary wall it is not an historic wall and therefore has no historic value." This is because the original wall was demolished and the materials carted away. If applicants are permittedJ to make any alterations they require to a wall by prior demolition this will become the pattern for development across the City.
In addition to the above works, the stonework to the entire building had been cleaned and all the surfaces retooled without listed building consent. The retooling of the Bath stone was not good practice and should not have been carried out.
The Panel comment at the meeting oil 20 May 2008 was not included the officer's report and therefore this report should be void. The Panel wished to receive a report frarn Ashley Grant, the case officer, the conservation officer and the relevant urban design officer to explain why this application was approved in the face of all good practice and supplementary planning guidance. Policy Advice Notice No. 6 stated that openings in front boundary walls should be a maximum of 2-3 metres being adequate to accommodate a car.
The applicant has ridden roughshod over both national and local policies and guidelines and made fools of the legislation and the local planning officers.

5 June 09: Mr Hale has advised that the conservatory company has been contracted to begin works on 18 July 2009, as this is the earliest date that was available, and that the conservatory structure will take approximately 2 weeks to be completed. He also intends to carry out the removal of the dormer at this time. Should the works proceed without any complications, the outstanding elements should be completed around the first week of August 2009.

7 April: The dormer window inserted into the rear roof elevation is unauthorized. Failure to remove it and restore the roof back to its original appearance within 2 months from this date of decision (26 March 2009) will likely result in further prosecution proceedings being taken by the Council.

4th March 09: Sutton House - Planning Update
Bristol City Council's enforcement action for breach of planning regulations came before Bristol Magistrates Court on 4th March.
The owner of this grade 2 listed building, currently on the market for £3.5 million , a Mr.Hale finally pleaded guilty to charges of building a dormer window and demolishing a front boundary wall without the necessary planning consents.
The Magistrates were told that the front garden wall had now been rebuilt, albeit with a wider entrance, in accordance with retrospective planning consent. However, planning consent in respect of the dormer window was refused on appeal last November and it, the court was told, had now been removed. (It was still there on 8th March.)
Mr.Hale, a property developer, was fined £2000 in respect of the wall, £3000 in respect of the window, with costs of £1674, making a total of £6674 plus £15 surcharge. At his request, he was given 28 days to pay.

11 Feb 09: 09/00298/H. This was granted 26 March
Proposal: Demolition of existing aluminium conservatory and replacement with new painted aluminium conservatory (800mm lower than existing unauthorised conservatory).
Retention of rebuilt front boundary wall, vehicular access position and modified entrance gate. 11 Feb 09:09/00299/LA. This was granted 26 March
Proposal:

i. Demolition of existing aluminium conservatory and replacement with new painted aluminium conservatory (800mm lower than existing unauthorised conservatory);
ii. Provision of a rooflight/sunpipe;
iii. Removal of unauthorised dormer window on rear of property;
iv. Replacement of rear UPVC casement window with painted timber sliding sash window;

v. Retention of rebuilt front boundary wall, vehicular access position and modified entrance gate.

original gateway shown by pennant stone crossover and gates (May 08)

gateway now central and over 2 metre wider than original (Feb 09). Permission was originally given to make gateway wider by 1 metre at original location

1 Dec: Planning Inspectorate appeal relating to dormer window turned down

28 Nov: Mr Hale's representative attended court on 28/11/08 and a not guilty plea was entered on both charges. They opted for a summary trial in the Magistrates court and a listing hearing has been set for 7 January.

31 Oct: case adjourned until 28 November 10am

17 Oct: case adjourned until 31 October 10am

22 Sept: case adjourned until 17 October 10am

08/03883/H Proposal Retrospective consent for removal of modern lean-to conservatory and erection of a new powder coated, aluminium framed conservatory with part stone clad walls. Received 15 September! Expiry Date for consultation 8 October
Sutton House

Note size and materials
Refused 13 Nov 08

September: Council has brought Prosecution proceedings against Mr Hale regarding recent construction of rear dormer and unauthorised demolition of front boundary wall. The matter will be heard before the Magistrates Court 22 September 10am.

21 August: 08/03408/H. Proposal Alterations to roof with new rooflight and replacement of existing rooflights and lantern lights.
Same as 08/02157/H but no dormer. Granted

19 August: Now gone to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, since Bristol City Council have refused to grant permission.
Write to The Planning Inspectorate by 30th September. Room 3/12A, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay BS1 6PN quoting APP/Z0116/A/08/2082882/WF and E/08/2082879/WF or submit views on-line http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/PCS (omit the '/WF' suffix to find the case
Views to be submitted by 30 September.
Despite permission being refused, the dormer window has subsequently still been inserted!

dormer window April
latest dormer August
Application No. 08/02157/H
Date Registered 13 May 2008 Proposal Alterations to roof with new dormer and rooflight, and replacement of existing rooflights and lantern lights. Refused
Application No. 08/01988/H
Proposal Internal and external alterations, including replacement of modern external staircase, replacement of modern conservatory and basement infill elevation, removal of suspended ceilings and partitioning, replacement of modern internal staircases accessing basement and lower section of ground to 1st floor staircase. Repairs to external masonry and re-pointing.
Date Registered 30 April 2008 Granted
Application No. 08/01666/H Date Registered 15 April 2008
Proposal Demolition and reconstruction of front boundary wall using salvaged and new matching material, realigning and widening the access. Alterations to the existing modern gates and repairs to side boundary walls and construction of dwarf wall following access drive.
A bit late- wall went at the begining of March! Granted

14 April 08: The most recent un-authorised works self evident at this property include:

(i) a suburban 'dormer' window in the important rear mansard roof slope.
This is not an appropriate element within the Conservation Area nor an appropriate alteration to this Listed Building whose preservation is in your care. See the adjoining Auburn house to show how the roof did and should be. The two houses are a symmetrical pair, together forming an important villa.
(ii) what appear to be metal or pvc windows placed forward of the original sash windows, Such alterations are completely without precedent and are unacceptable.
(iii) At the front of the house, the stone balustrading above the front entrance and arch has now been removed without consent (as the front wall was demolished).

Other matters previously reported include:

(iv) Demolition of front wall
(v) Reducing level of front garden, with damage to roots of tree resulting in the need to fell for safety reasons.
(vi) Laying of wide black tarmac drive and car parking area in contravention of recent Canynge Road appeal decision.
(vii) Un-authorised stripping of interior of property at basement and second floor level, with removal of original panel doors

4 March 08: 08/30136/LB. Enforcement Case: Unauthorised and illegal works to this Listed Building. Mr Bishop, Head of Planning has kept been informed.

The Bath stone and local random coursed and squared rubble stone front wall has been demolished, and not a single stone salvaged for re-use. The continuity of this wall if of fundamental architectural and historical importance to the Promenade of which this is an extension. No foundation has been dug for the rebuilding of the wall.
No application for Listed Building consent has been made as far as we are aware.
Since then we understand that statues and panelled doors have been thrown out and the basement and second floor stripped out.
All original plasterwork, cornices, fireplaces and joinery have been removed or destroyed at these levels.
It is the Planning Department's responsibility, and not ours, to ensure this does not happen.
We now require a stop order to be served on the owner forthwith and proceedings to be instigated with respect to the illegal demolition of the front wall and demolition of the interior features. We will of course expect full and expert reinstatement.

Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society (CHIS)

Sutton House, Clifton Down Bristol BS8 3HT (bottom of Canygne Rd)