Appeal Decision 124 - Certificate of Lawful
This appeal decision summary and
assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited. For more information, please go to www.planningjungle.com/?p=20
June 2010 - Code a00124
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
semi-detached house. The application was for the retention of a hip-to-gable roof extension, rear dormer, and
two front rooflights.
The first key issue was
whether the use of “granulated roofing felt” on the flat roof of the dormer was contrary to Class B, part
B.2(a), which requires that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those
used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
The Inspector stated the
“The Council argues the
materials of the flat roof of the dormer, i.e. granulated roofing felt, would not be similar to the tiles of the
original roof and that accordingly the first criterion is not satisfied. However, the explanatory note issued by
the Department of Communities and Local Government shortly after the introduction of the Order makes clear that
in the case of flat dormer roofs the intention was that the appearance of the extension should be similar and
that it is not necessary for the materials to be of the same type as those used on the main roof.
Moreover, subsequent guidance on the Planning Portal takes a similar approach. It is therefore apparent that the
aim of the Order is to ensure that alterations to roofs do not have a harmful visual impact. In my opinion the
roof of the dormer in the present case has little, if any, visual impact since my visit to the site suggests
that it is not observable from any public location in the vicinity. It would also appear that the roof is
unlikely to be seen from any private location. I therefore conclude that the criterion is in fact
The second key issue was
whether the Juliette balcony on the rear dormer was contrary to Class B, part B.1(d), which states that
“Development is not permitted by Class B if … (d) it would consist of or include … (i) the construction or
provision of a veranda, balcony or raised platform …”
The Inspector stated the
“I now turn to the second
matter. The Council emphasises that the development includes a “Juliette balcony”, i.e. a French window with
railings across its lower part. As is typical of such features, there is no area on which a person could stand,
but the increased size of the window allows more light into the room than would be obtained from a window with a
typical sill height. In my opinion, since the development does not include a balcony in the normal sense in
which the term is used, i.e. a platform projecting from an outside wall, the second criterion is also satisfied.
The clear intent of the Order is to prevent the additional overlooking of adjoining properties, and the
resulting loss of privacy, that could arise from the provision of a platform at high level. However, as there is
no such opportunity for overlooking in the present case the objective of the Order is met.”
The use of felt (or similar) for
the flat roof of a dormer (assuming that the visibility of the roof would be limited) would not be
contrary to Class B, part B.2(a). The Inspector indicates (or implies) that the felt would not need to
have a similar colour to the materials on the existing house.
[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
[Relevant to: “Materials”, A.3(a), B.2(a)].
A “Juliette balcony” is
not a “balcony” for the purposes of the GPDO, and therefore is permitted
“Juliette balconies”, A.1(i), B.1(d), E.1(g)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of