Appeal Decision 234 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

April 2011 - Code a00234

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a detached house with a hipped main roof. The application was for proposed hip-to-gable roof extensions (on both sides) and the erection of a rear dormer. The submitted drawings stated that the new gable ends and the proposed rear dormer would be clad in “fibre cement panels" with a colour to match the rear extension which has been approved under a separate planning permission (but not yet built). The submitted drawings also stated that the windows of the proposed rear dormer would be “powder coated” (i.e. aluminium). 

The key issue was whether the proposed materials 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: 

“I have already pointed out that Condition B.2(a) does not require the use of matching materials, only that the materials to be used shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the exterior of the existing house. Nevertheless the Council’s concern is based upon the contention that the materials to be used in the construction of the rear dormer would still fail to meet this condition. The appellant, however, states that the proposed dormer would be clad in cement panels, with powder coated sliding windows to match the recently approved rear extension, and that the aim of the condition is to ensure an appearance that minimises visual impact and is sympathetic to the main house. Furthermore, as the area of contention would be at the rear of the house, these alterations would not be visible from the street and therefore have little appreciable impact on the appearance of the dwelling. 

I agree that the aim of the condition is to ensure that a new extension uses similar rather than matching materials in order to minimise visual impact, but this relates to the use of materials similar to those on the existing house (my emphasis). The principle materials used in the rear elevation are roof tiles, 

white pebbledash render for the walls and white uPVC windows. The existing side dormer has a hipped tile roof and has tile-hung sides, with the tiles in both instances matching those of the main roof. The introduction of fibre cement panels for the dormer, and powder coated sliding windows, would not resemble these existing materials, particularly in respect of the cement panels. The fact that this element of the development may not be visible from the street does not overcome this conflict and, in any event, private views should not be lightly dismissed. 

The application plans show an intention to match the colour of the cement panels to the proposed rear extension, but that extension has yet to be built. Indeed there can be no certainty that it would be built and the proposed roof extension could be built as a discrete development if an LDC were granted. Therefore the proposed development does not meet the terms of Condition B.2(a) as the proposed materials are not of a similar appearance to those used in the existing dwellinghouse. It follows that the Council’s decision in this respect was well founded.” 

The Inspector also examined the volume calculations for the proposals, and agreed with the appellant that the proposals would be less than 50m3. 

[Note: In my opinion, this appeal decision appears to indicate that aluminium windows would not be “of a similar appearance” to UPVC windows].

Main Conclusions: 

·       This appeal decision provides an example of where it was considered that fibre cement panels (on the new gable ends of the proposed main roof, and on a proposed rear dormer) would not be “of a similar appearance” to roof tiles (on the existing main roof).
[Relevant to: “Materials”, A.3(a), B.2(a)].

·       This appeal decision provides an example of where it was considered that aluminium windows (on a proposed rear dormer) would not be “of a similar appearance” to UPVC windows (on the existing main house).
[Relevant to: “Materials”, A.3(a), B.2(a)].

Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc): 

·       Appeal Decision Notice:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00234-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Front Elevation:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00234-Existing-Front-Elevation.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Side Elevations:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00234-Existing-Side-Elevations.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Existing Rear Elevation:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00234-Existing-Rear-Elevation.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Front Elevation:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00234-Proposed-Front-Elevation.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Side Elevations:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00234-Proposed-Side-Elevations.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

·       Proposed Rear Elevation:
http://planningjungle.com/?s2member_file_download=a00234-Proposed-Rear-Elevation.pdf&s2member_skip_confirmation&s2member_file_inline=yes 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information