Man at war with council after he is ordered to demolish extension because of 'nonsense' complaint from neighbours

Daily Mail​

26-07-2025

A furious homeowner is at war with his local council after he was ordered to demolish his extension and wood-burning chimneys.
Gerrard Caughey has branded the decision 'nonsense' after planning chiefs said he built the sunroom at his Glasgow home without permission.
Mr Caughey was slapped with two enforcement notices by Glasgow City Council (GCC) but took his fight to the courts where the government ruled against him.
According to the council, his neighbours were also unimpressed with the extension, built in 2018 and attached to his ground-floor flat, and in particular with smoke billowing out of his chimneys.
While inspectors said the sunroom was not in 'character' with the original property, a listed building, or the wider street.
Mr Caughey fumed: 'I think it's nonsense. Most folk I speak with in the area love the smell of the smoke, and I use it very occasionally.'
Speaking to STV, he said the sunroom was built with high quality Spanish hardwood shipped from abroad, and stated the state of the orangery, which had previously been in place when purchased, was 'dangerous and a 'shambles'.
Mr Caughey added: 'You can't even see the garden from out in the street. It's not causing anyone harm or anything.'
Challenging the notion there were numerous complaints, Mr Caughey's planning agent said as part of his appeal: 'GCC enforcement allude to "various complaints" with regards to the structure.
'We are aware of one complaint from the neighbouring property, and we understand there have been long-running disputes from them.
'My clients are not aware of any further complaints from within the area and we would suggest therefore the word "various" has been used spuriously in the compiling of the GCC report.'
The sunroom was built as an extension to the mid-19th century terraced building in 2018, but GCC say no planning permission was ever sought for it.
Mr Caughey, however, argued that the property had a single-storey sun room attached when he purchased the property in the 1990s.
The orangery was said to be in a 'dangerous condition deemed irrepairable' by Mr Caughey, a builder himself, and so he removed the glazed element and left the foundation and floor in-situ to return to at a point in the future.
He says the sunroom was re-instated in 2018 based on the 'original footprint'.
He also argued in the appeal that the council did not respond to queries about retrospective planning permission and that a prior notice about the flues had been dismissed - GCC refute this.
While the extension was installed at the back of the property, two flues, for the wood-burning stove within a workshop in the garden, were put into place to face the lane which runs to the back of the property.
The council ordered the removal of both in November last year on the terms that there was no planning permission or listed building consent.
Mr Caughey's appeal also argued the sunroom had been installed six years before the enforcement notice was served.
The council also ruled the smoke from the chimneys have a 'direct impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties'.
When MailOnline visited the street, neighbours expressed the same concerns.
They said that 'black smoke' coming from the chimneys was concerning surrounding residents and that it was visible streets away on Dennistoun's main road of Duke street.
Mr Caughey, who lives in the property with others above and below, was unavailable when the Mail attempted to contact him.
A man who said he lived in the basement of the listed building shouted abuse and told our reporter to go away.
However, one neighbour, who did not want to be named, admitted to complaining about his chimneys and sunroom.
They said: 'I don't have anything to say other than the fact we were not happy.
'It's was not so much the summerhouse as the smoke from the fires which was a big aspect of things.'
Admitting that other neighbours were concerned about the effect that it might have on younger children, they added: 'You could see the smoke from Duke Street as you walk up the hill.
'It's black and it's heavy and a few neighbours can see it but I don't think anyone wants to comment more about it.
'It was so bad that neighbours took a video of it at the time.'
Another neighbour added: 'I know about the double chimney but we personally didn't complain about it.
'There is a nursery around here though so maybe it affected some of the people who use that.'
Planning convener for Dennistoun Community Council, Brian Johnston, had written a letter of support for the extension, writing that the work had been 'carried out with a sympathetic regard for the original building' and praised the workmanship and design as being of a high quality.
While the flues stick out onto a back lane, the council said they were not a 'sufficient distance' from neighbouring houses and stated that a retrospective planning application would also be refused.
Simon Bonsall, the reporter appointed to the case by the Scottish Government, concluded that planning permission was required for both structures and that this had been breached by bypassing the process.
Listed building consent was also refused for the sunroom as he ruled: 'While the effect of the orangery on the setting would not be harmful, I consider that the orangery through it's design, location and materials would not be in keeping with the character of the listed building.'
A Glasgow City Council spokesman said: 'It should be noted that it was the Scottish Government - not Glasgow City Council - which dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the structure does not benefit from either planning permission or listed building consent and that the wood burning stoves were causing disamenity to the surrounding homes.
'It should also be understood that unauthorised alteration of a listed building is a criminal, not civic, offence and therefore carry a higher magnitude of scrutiny.
'The claim that we had withdrawn a notice and that there had been an attempt to submit a planning application is not true, indeed it was admitted that the resident left their application in the drafts section of the online planning process and did not submit it.'
If Mr Caughey wishes to challenge the appeal decision, he would have to take the case to Scotland's highest court, the Court of Session.