Appeal Decision 236 - 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
April 2011 - Code a00236
Summary of Case (appeal
The property is a two-storey
end-of-terrace house, with walls finished in render and roof finished in tiles. The application was for a
proposed rear dormer, the face and cheeks of which would have been finished in render (i.e. similar to the main
walls of the house, rather than to the main roof of the house).
The key issue was whether the
use of render for the face and cheeks of the 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
“Turning to the dormer
extension at the rear, the technical guidance issued by the Communities and Local Government department (CLG) is
very clear and unambiguous. On page 34 it states that the face and sides of a dormer extension should be
finished using materials that are similar in appearance to the existing house; in that context it goes on to say
that they should be of similar design and colour to those used on the main roof of the dwelling when
viewed from ground level. In this instance a rendered finish to the sides and front of the dormer is proposed
matching the house walls but the roof is tiled.
The arguments put forward
by the appellant deal with planning merits but my decision (as with any LDC decision) is purely concerned with
matters of fact; in this case does the proposal meet the criteria and restrictions set out in the GPDO. Whether
or not the dormer would look better if finished as proposed rather than with red tile hanging is a matter to be
considered if and when a planning application is submitted. As proposed it does not meet the restrictions
as they are set out in paragraph B.2(a) of Part 1, Class B of the GPDO and further explained in the technical
Class B, part B.2(a) would
not 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 necessary for the face and cheeks of a dormer to be of a similar
appearance to the roof of the main 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)].
Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):
Download documents and diagrams of