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 60 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

December 2009 - Code a00060  


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 (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 “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: 






Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download


 Appeal Decisions