Appeal Decision 108 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

The following appeal summary has been written by Steve Speed, and is available on his website www.planningjungle.com

10 March 2010 – 249 High Street, London Colney, St Albans, Hertfordshire AL2 1HA  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/B1930/X/09/2113412 

Inspector: George Mapson DipTP DipLD MRTPI 

St Albans City & District Council Reference: 5/2009/1296 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

The property is a two-storey end-of-terrace house, and the application was for a proposed rear dormer. It appears that the applicant did not specify what materials would be used for the roof and the sides of the proposed rear dormer. 

The key issue was whether the lack of specification of what materials would be used for the proposed rear 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: 

“All permitted development rights are subject to limitations and conditions. Condition B.2(a) of Class B states 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 condition does allow for some local interpretation. For example, some local planning authorities might interpret it in such a way that would mean that all flatroofed dormer extensions, which typically have a felt or a fibreglass roof, would not be permitted development.  

However, the condition should not be taken to mean that the type of material used needs to be either the same or similar to the existing building. It only requires the appearance to be similar. A dormer roof need not be covered by concrete tile or slate. Even where a different material is used it is possible that the condition could be met if, for example, a similar colour were to be used.  

The appellant contends that the Council is trying to exploit a technicality to prevent the building of a flat-roofed dormer, which it does not favour.  

I disagree. The appellant has provided no information on the application form, the application plan or the appeal representations about the type of materials that would be used for the sides or roof of the proposed dormer. He has not demonstrated that they would be of a similar appearance to those used in the existing dwellinghouse. Consequently, there is no evidence to show that there would be compliance with condition B.2(a) and that the proposal would be permitted development.  

The burden of proof has not been discharged. For this reason, I conclude that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development was well-founded and that the appeal should fail. I will exercise accordingly the powers transferred to me in section 195(3) of the 1990 Act as amended.” 

Main Conclusions: 

·       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 (in principle) be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a). However, the Inspector indicates (or implies) that the felt would 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 “Contents” section on “B.2(a)”]
[Relevant to: B.2(a)].

·       A certificate of lawful development should be refused if the applicant has not demonstrated full compliance with all of the conditions of the Class.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “Conditions”].
[Relevant to: “Conditions”, A.3(a), A.3(b), A.3(c), B.2(a), B.2(b), B.2(c), C.2, F.1, H.2(a), H.2(b)].

·       For example, if an applicant does not specify what materials would be used for a proposed extension, then the application should be refused.
[Note: This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Contents” section on “Conditions”].
[Relevant to: “Conditions”, A.3(a), A.3(b), A.3(c), B.2(a), B.2(b), B.2(c), C.2, F.1, H.2(a), H.2(b)].

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/B1930/X/09/2113412&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2469169 

Link to LPA website: 

www.stalbans.gov.uk 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information