Appeal Decision 60 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

9 December 2009 – 3 St Andrews Park Road, Southborough, Tunbridge Wells, TN4 0NL  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/M2270/X/09/2109480 

Inspector: Diane Lewis BA(Hons) MCD MA LLM MRTPI 

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Reference: 09/00029/CPD/GM2 

Summary of Case (appeal allowed): 

The property is a two-storey semi-detached house with a hipped roof.  The application was for a proposed hip-to-gable roof extension and the erection of a rear dormer. 

The key issue was whether the use of felt for the flat roof of 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”. 

During the application, the agent confirmed that felt would be used for the roof of the proposed rear dormer, and the Council refused the application on this basis.  Following this refusal, the agent proposed red or brown mineral felt as being similar in appearance to the roof tiles, or as an alternative, lead. 

The Inspector acknowledged that the materials incorporated into the external fabric of the house do not include mineral felt. However, she stated that this in itself would not rule out the use of felt because the condition is for a material of a similar appearance, not type. The Inspector stated that achieving a similar appearance “could depend on a number of factors including colour, form, texture, durability, size, profile and visibility”.  She noted that any views of the felt would be from a distance, and that the colour would be the most important discernable characteristic, rather than the texture. The Inspector stated that the probability is that felt of a colour similar to the existing roofing tiles would be available and so in effect the felt covering would be of a similar appearance. The Inspector therefore concluded that that Class B, part B.2(a) could be met. 

Main Conclusions: 

·       The use of felt for the flat roof of a dormer (assuming that the visibility of the roof would be limited) would not be contrary to Class B, part B.2(a).  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)]. 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/M2270/X/09/2109480&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.2156680 

Link to LPA website: 

http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/ 

Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information