Kelsey Grammer, famed for his role in Fraser, has been granted permission to raze a historic 200 year old cottage, sparking outrage among neighbours.
The actor, also known for his stint in Cheers, has faced accusations of ‘arrogance’ and complete ‘disregard’ for the heritage property located near Bristol after he sought approval to demolish it.
Previously unsuccessful in an attempt to extend the building, Grammer has now received confirmation that ‘no prior approval’ is necessary to dismantle the Portishead cottage, which dates back at least 185 years.
His demolition plans have drawn the ire of local residents, with eight letters of objection lodged on the North Somerset Council planning portal, and not a single letter supporting the move.
The objections raised concerns over the loss of historical value, lack of justification for the demolition, potential harm to the rural setting, loss of green space, and resistance to prospective modern architectural designs.
However, a recent decision notice from council planners has stated that no prior approval is required, giving the go-ahead for the demolition.
The conditions stipulated in the approval dictate that the demolition must take place before 12 February 2030.
Neighbours are incensed by the proposal.
An objector expressed: “We do not wish to stand in the way of this wonderful, historic cottage being modernised and future-proofed, made bigger and/or more suitable to modern living.”
They added: “We did not object to, or comment on, the previous planning application, despite the enormous scale of the proposed works.
“However, the possibility of this cottage which is at least 185 years old, being razed to the ground, is not acceptable. We would implore the local authority to ensure that this is not allowed to happen.”
Other locals echoed the same sentiments, writing: “I am concerned to see that the proposal to demolish a character cottage built in the vernacular style, sited prominently on the coast road is being considered.”
One objector warned that any development on this coastal stretch would harm the area’s rural charm and set a worrying precedent for future development, stressing that it would be a devastating blow to the local community.
Another concerned resident expressed their dismay, stating: “It would be a very sad day to see a lovely old cottage with such rich local historical significance be destroyed.”
The vast array of objections raised several valid points as to why demolition should not be considered. Moreover, many argued that if the reasoning behind rejecting the proposed extension was sound, the planning consent for the new builds that clash with the existing properties in the area should also have been rejected.
A passionate plea was made to the decision-makers: “I hope the decision makers can make the right decision and not let this cottage be lost, but instead be preserved and kept for future generations.”
Other emotive appeals included one from a friend of a former resident, who wrote: “Totally object to the demolition of this cottage. A close friend of mine lived happily here in this beautiful cottage for quite a few years.”
Another pointed out the historical significance of the building, saying: “This cottage is over 150 years old, historic, and part of the heritage of this coastline.”
The cottage, steeped in history and one of the few structures still standing from the 1840 tithe maps along the coastal road between Portishead and Clevedon, was once nestled amidst dense heathland.
One passionate objector declared: “The stunning character of this period building should be reason enough for any request to demolish to be discounted.”
They continued with a stark warning: “If we do not value our architectural heritage such as this, then what stands in the way of unscrupulous developers and apathetic bureaucrats? The cottage should be cherished not swept aside.
“Furthermore, the brazen attempt to demolish after being denied permission to extend only highlights the audacity of those involved and their contempt for North Somerset Council’s (NSC) decision-making process,” they added.
The individual implored authorities: “I urge the decision makers to take a stand against these behaviours, in a time where bullying and bluster is commonplace on the world stage.”
They cautioned: “Set a precedent now and the door is all that easier to open next time.”
Walton-in-Gordano Parish Council also voiced their opposition, labelling the cottage a “historic icon” on this segment of the coast, suggesting it deserves careful and appropriate modernisation to become a modest home rather than a grandiose one.
The council stressed: “Walton-in-Gordano parish council feel that the detailed reasons behind the (previous) refusal carry as much weight in relation to the current application and trust that the proposed vandalism of (the cottage) can be disallowed by as robust a refusal decision.”
Planning permission is granted by law, not the local authority, under the terms of ‘permitted development.’
North Somerset Council’s responsibility was to decide if ‘prior approval’ was necessary or should be given for certain aspects of the ‘permitted development’.
The council stated: “The proposed demolition is unlikely to have a significant impact upon local amenity and it is concluded, therefore, that prior approval is not required with regards to the method of demolition and the restoration of the site.”
Grammer and his wife Kayte crossed paths on a transatlantic flight where she served as an air stewardess, and they tied the knot in 2011.
In 2023, the actor disclosed that the couple had purchased a ‘little place’ in Portishead to be nearer to his wife’s Bristol-based family and intended to renovate it.
During an interview at the time, he expressed their plans to be “working on it” and shared that they wouldn’t move in immediately but were “pretty excited.”
Last year, they applied for permission to tear down all the various extensions on three sides of the historic cottage, primarily constructed in the 1980s, and erect a large new extension that was up to twice the size of the original building, along with a new basement.
However, planners rejected the proposal, stating it would ‘result in a large and disproportionate enlargement of the dwelling’, and would ‘harm the openness of the Green Belt.’