ask us a question on permitted development           Permitted Development England
How to build a home extension  without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st 2008



Home Page About Us FAQ Advertise on this site Disclaimer Privacy Contact Us Site Map

Appeal Decision 219 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

This appeal decision summary and assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited.  For more information, please go to


March 2011 - Code a00219


Summary of Case (mixed decision): 


The property is a three-storey detached house, with a mixture of pebble dash render and timber boarding on the front elevation. The application was for various works, including the proposed installation of smooth render on the front elevation. 


The key issue was whether the proposals would be contrary to Class A, part A.3(a), which states that “In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, development is not permitted by Class A if … it would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwellinghouse with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles”. 


The Inspector stated the following: 


“The Council considers that the smooth render is significantly different to the timber boarding and pebble dash render that it would replace. It took the view, when refusing the application, that condition A.3(a) of Class A of Part 1 of the GPDO, to which any permitted development in respect of alterations to a dwellinghouse is subject, would not, therefore, be met. The condition 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 dwellinghouse. 


The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of appeal decisions where inspectors have expressed the view that a commonsense approach should be taken to what constitutes a ‘similar appearance’ and I find no reason to disagree with their findings. There is no requirement that new material should exactly match the existing and, in my view, smooth render appears similar enough to painted pebbledash render to meet condition A.3(a). I conclude that, in respect of the works to the elevation, they would be lawful and I shall issue a certificate of lawful development accordingly.” 


Main Conclusions: 


·       This appeal decision provides an example of where it was considered that smooth render (on the proposed front elevation of the house) would be “of a similar appearance” to pebbledash render (on the existing front elevation of the 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: 

·       OS Map: 

·       Photo: 




Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download


 Appeal Decisions