Enforcement Planning Permission

[caveatemptor]

Hi all,

I am new to the forum and wondered if you could help with a letter I received from the Council threatening enforcement action for a breach of a planning condition.

The condition reads: “the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted, shall match those of the existing dwelling”

I have spoken to the Council and they are saying that we have not painted the exterior and that is why we have served with a letter threatening enforcement action.

My reading of this condition is that it does not actually specify that the new extension is to be “decorated” just that we are to use the same “materials” as appear in the existing part of the house.

Does anyone have any experience or guidance on this that may assist?

Thanks

 

[^woody^]

The implication of that condition is that the extension looks the same as the main house.

So you can't just use the same brick and claim a match if the finished wall is not the same colour.

Btw, paint is a material.

 

[tony1851]

Paint is of course a material, but is it a material 'used in the construction....' as the condition states?
In this context, surely paint is a finish, rather than an inherent part of the wall construction?

 

[^woody^]

Paint is of course a material, but is it a material 'used in the construction....' as the condition states?
In this context, surely paint is a finish, rather than an inherent part of the wall construction?

Yes you could argue that. The bricks certainly don't need to be painted for performance, but if the condition asks for the "matching materials", if the bricks and joints don't look like they've been Sandtexed, then they may well not match - so a further material is required.

It's all a bit woolly without seeing images of the match/mismatch

 

[LukeB123]

That condition is a bit poor, I see both points.

If you reallly want to fight it / don't want to paint the part of the extension / development, it could be worthwhile letting the notice be served and appealing and seeing what an inspector says. Just be prepared to paint it if it doesn't go your way.

If I had to predict the outcome, I would say that as the condition says the materials should "Match", then it just about covers the Council. (I.E. if you have a redbrick house, and use a bright green brick for the extension, even though they are the same materials, can you really say the materials "match")

I have seen enforcement notices overturned though on the specific wording of notice and where wording is not clear or precise so you could take a punt.

 

[tony1851]

I would concur with the above; you don't 'construct' an 'external surface' - but you can 'finish' it eg with paint.
Sure, we know what the spirit of the condition is, but it is the letter of the law which counts.

 

[lt8480]

Paint is the final "material" placed onto the construction of the wall and therefore is the "material used in the construction of the external surface".

If the semantic argument being concocted stood then you would be able argue that the exterior could be "decorated" with timber shiplap or zinc cladding, or anything really stuck over the brick... In fact on a cavity wall the outer leaf isn't always structural, its often just a rain screen tied back to the structural inner leaf... but I think the implication of the condition is that it should look the same once finished, not that it was constructed with the same structural blockwork inside the wall.