Permitted Development England
How to build a
home extension without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st
2008
|
|||||||||
Appeal Decision 142 - Certificate of Lawful Development.
Summary of Case (appeal allowed):
The property is a two-storey semi-detached house, with a hipped main roof. The application was for a proposed rear and side dormer. The submitted drawings stated that the face of the side dormer would be brick.
The Council refused the application on the basis that the brickwork that was proposed for the face of the side dormer would not be similar in appearance to the materials used in the construction of the exterior of the existing roof (which predominantly consists of blue tiling).
The key issue was whether the use of brickwork for the face of the side dormer would be 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 following:
“In considering the application of this condition in respect of the proposed development, I can now take into account relevant technical guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has recently been published on the Planning Portal. This I consider resolves the disputed issue satisfactorily without the need for me to offer any view on what was intended by the wording of the condition. The guidance states, on page 34, that Condition B.2(a) is intended to ensure that any addition or alteration to a roof for a loft conversion results in an appearance that minimises visual impact and is sympathetic to the existing house. What that is said to mean is that the materials should be of similar visual appearance to those in the existing house, but does not mean that they need to be the same materials or match exactly. In the light of this and the two examples given in the guidance, I conclude in favour of the appellant”.
[Note: In my opinion, the above conclusion contradicts the advice in the “DCLG - Permitted development for householders - Technical guidance” (August 2010). The Inspector provides extracts from page 34 of this guidance document, and then refers to the two examples that are given (at the end of page 34). However, these two examples are written in the guidance document as follows:
“- the flat roofs of dormer windows will not normally have any visual impact and so the use of materials such as felt, lead or zinc for flat roofs of dormers will therefore be acceptable
- the face and sides of a dormer window should be finished using materials that give a similar visual appearance to existing house. So the materials used for facing a dormer should appear to be of similar colour and design to the materials used in the main roof of the house when viewed from ground level. Window frames should also be similar to those in the existing house in terms of their colour and overall shape.”
In my opinion, the conclusion by this appeal decision that the face of a dormer can be of a similar appearance to the main flank wall contradicts the above guidance that the face of a dormer should be of a similar appearance to the main roof].
Main Conclusions:
·
Class B, part B.2(a)
would allow the face and cheeks of a dormer to be of a similar appearance to the walls of
the main house. In other words, it is not necessary
for the face and cheeks of a dormer to be of a similar appearance to the roof of the main
house.
Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
·
Appeal Decision
Notice:
·
Drawings:
Download documents and diagrams of useful Permitted Development information
| |||||||||
|
©2020 - Christopher Hunt :: This page
last updated: :: 