Bothwell residents' anger over penthouse plans

Nov 12 2009 by Alastair McNeill, Hamilton Advertiser

RESIDENTS of an exclusive Bothwell block of flats are concerned that an extension to its penthouse could undermine the structure of the building.

Planning permission for the two-bedroom extension on the balcony of the top-floor flat of the Regents Gate block was last week granted by councillors.

Planners had received 13 letters of objection to Gillian Dunion’s scheme – six of which came from her Douglas Tower neighbours.

The officials stressed, however, that ownership of the tower’s roof area had to be resolved before any construction work begins.

Douglas Tower is identical to neighbouring Hamilton and Valence towers; each of the five-storey buildings have 12 flats and a penthouse on the top floor.

Douglas Tower residents claimed that “serious structural issues” – such as water ingress, ceiling damage and ceiling collapses – have occurred at nearby Valence Tower following the erection of a conservatory on the roof there, and are worried about similar problems in their building.

One worried resident said: “Our building is almost 35 years old, and perhaps could do with a facelift. However, an extension is another matter because of the problems experienced at Valence Tower. Residents don’t want to be landed with expensive bills for structural difficulties as a result of this extension”.

Another said: “We don’t consider the building to be strong enough to withstand an extra level on top. The ground outside the property is soft – especially when we get all this rain. I can see the building sinking into the ground.”

The objector also stressed that the building’s deeds state it should have no extensions.

Opponents also claimed that Valence Tower’s insurance company had refused to pay for damage caused by the roof extension’s extra weight. They considered it “obvious” the roof should not be built on.

Planning officials, however, stated that structural issues and building insurance are not a material planning consideration. They added that a structural engineers reports would probably be required as part of the building warrant application.

Planning chief Colin McDowall said: “The ownership of the roof is a legal matter which will need to be resolved before work can commence.

“As part of the assessment of a building warrant, it is likely that an engineers report and certificate would be required to ensure the structural integrity of the proposal in relation to the existing property.”

Lawyer Joe Beltrami, who lives in Valence Tower, confirmed there had been problems with the building.

“We had trouble with rainwater,” he said. “However, there was no proof that had been due to the (roof) extension.”

The Advertiser contacted Mrs Dunion but she refused to comment.