I shelled out £32k to banish mould – but after 10 years of work council told ME to tear it down & gave strict time limit
A HOMEOWNER who forked out £32,000 on cladding to tackle dangerous mould has now been ordered to rip it down.
Tim Stephenson has more than a decade tackling the scourge of black mould at his family home in Corsham, Wiltshire.
He was granted planning permission for works including an extension and the replacement of the exterior render of the house in 2009.
Although Tim finished the extension at the time, the rendering of the original home was delayed.
And it’s taken until 10 years later for the work to finally be completed.
But Wiltshire Council has now ordered him to tear down the cladding after ruling it looks “highly unsympathetic”.
For energy efficiency and to combat existing damp issues, the front of Tim’s home was fitted with insulation prior to being rendered.
But the council has said the “additional layer means the walls project further than the eaves of the roof and the coping stones on the verges”.
Tim claims the local authority has given him just six months to remove the rendered eco-friendly cladding from his home.
He also says the council has refused to engage after he was issued with an enforcement notice regarding the alterations in February last year.
The homeowner has told the council he is willing to change the colouring and aesthetic of the cladding, but claims his offer has been ignored.
Tim said: “You don’t wish to be on the wrong side of the law.
”We had no intention of upsetting our neighbours, the local community, or indeed anybody.”
But the council ruled: “As a result of the vivid colouring, proportion and detailing, the dwelling stands out in the street scene and significantly harms the heritage assets and their setting by detracting from the dominant vernacular form.”
Tim applied for retrospective planning permission, but this was refused as the cladding was considered harmful to the Corsham Conservation Area.
He then decided to appeal both the refusal and the council’s enforcement notice, but on February 7, the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeals and ruled the cladding should be removed within six months.
Tim has now started a petition and noted the insulation had solved a mould issue that his family had dealt with for over 20 years.
He said: “We’ve done all of the things that you do, the anti-mould treatment, frequently applied the mould-proof paint.
“We’d consistently failed to do anything more than keep it under control in the whole time that we’d lived here.”
“My ideal outcome would be that we could sit down with the council and work out something that could be an exemplar for a design which they’re happy with and which could, at the same time, point the way towards a decarbonised future.”
Tim added: “The professional advice I have received tells me that it would be very common for such changes to be discussed and stipulated within the planning process.
”However this has not been my experience. Wiltshire simply chose to reject the retrospective application.”
Tim said he’s willing to “hold my hands up” to the mistake, but wants to work with the council to find a resolution.
Cllr Nick Botterill, Cabinet Member for Development Management and Strategic Planning, said: “This sends a clear message to anyone considering making changes to their property without planning permission.
“As we have clearly set out in our Business Plan, we will use all powers available to us, including enforcement action and prosecution if necessary to prevent planning breaches in Wiltshire.
“In this case, the homeowner made significant changes to the outside of their property, which is in a Conservation Area, without planning permission, and they were served an enforcement notice. Their retrospective application for planning permission was rejected, and then their subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.
“This is a great result that illustrates the tenacity of our planning enforcement team, and reminds everyone in Wiltshire that we will use all of our powers and take enforcement action against breaches of planning regulations in the county.”
In a further statement, he added: “We appreciate that Mr Stephenson was attempting to address the issue of mould in his property, but the property is in a conservation area and national planning policy requires this to be given ‘great weight’.
“We are always happy to discuss ideas for how to address specific issues, but Mr Stephenson should first ensure that the property is restored to its former condition.”