Homeowner Ordered to Demolish Dormer Due to Material Misuse

Christopher Morillon, a 38-year-old cyber-security headhunter, has been ordered by the Richmond upon Thames Council to tear down a dormer extension he built on his semi-detached home in Teddington, London. The council ruled that the modern white render used on the dormer violated planning permission, which stipulated the use of traditional roof tiles.

Morillon purchased the three-bedroom home for £815,000 in April 2018 and spent years renovating it into a larger family home, adding side and rear extensions along with the L-shaped dormer. Approved plans from 2021 showed the dormer with traditional roof tiles, but the construction was completed in 2023 with a white render finish.

Despite no initial objections from neighbors, the council served enforcement papers after the renovation was finished. The council cited that the white render was "not a traditional roof material" and was "at odds with the other dormers and roof extensions within the vicinity," making the addition appear "stark and domineering."

Morillon appealed the council's decision, arguing that the demands were excessive and that he needed two years to complete the work due to financial constraints. However, an independent planning inspector upheld the council's enforcement notice, giving Morillon nine months to alter the extension to comply with the approved plans. He estimates the cost of rebuilding the dormer to be around £25,000.

Morillon expressed frustration, questioning why council inspectors who visited the property during construction did not raise concerns about the materials used. He stated that he believed the render was more energy-efficient and would better suit the south-facing aspect of the house. "We had, I think, seven different building control people from the council come throughout the build," Morillon said. "There was a lot of questioning around the render that we were using, about the heat-loss properties of it."

He added that the family had invested significant time and effort into the property, intending it as their "forever home," and is now struggling to find the funds for the repairs. A spokesperson for Richmond upon Thames Council stated that it is important for planning rules to be applied consistently, regardless of objections, and that the extension was built without the required permission. The council confirmed that an independent Planning Inspector upheld their enforcement action.