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 236 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

April 2011 - Code a00236


Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 


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 following: 


“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 advice note.” 


Main Conclusions: 


·       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 “Materials”]
[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: 

·       Drawings: 





Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download


 Appeal Decisions