terraced house - front wall - render

aoleks

hi all,

I'm looking to get the front of me terraced house rendered (k-rend). house is the 2nd property in a row of 6, all walls are made of brick. freehold, owned, no conservation area.

am I right in thinking I can just get it done and not worry about anything? I know no planning permission is required, but the wording around "materials of a similar appearance" is vague. I know this has been discussed widely, but it's still not clear to me how to proceed. clearly nothing else but brick will be similar in appearance to brick, so if you look at it this way, then you're not allowed anything. having said that, I'm seeing a lot of individual (terraced) houses rendered and I can't imagine it will be a problem.

anyone who's been through this or has any insider council knowledge?

thanks

Belenus

Why do you want to render it?

Is there a problem with the existing wall or do you just like the appearance of a rendered wall?

FreeBear

"materials of a similar appearance" would be brick of a similar colour & type. Render is not similar by any stretch of the imagination.

Terrace house - If this is a Victorian type with solid brick walls, K-Rend and any other cement based render isn't really suitable. Ideally, you want to use a pure lime based render to enable the walls to "breath". (third time today) Should also point out that Building Control should be notified and they will probably want to see insulation added to the walls (wood fibre or cork boards for a solid brick wall).

aoleks

1. not victorian row house, 1950s ex-council. cavity wall + insulation. k-rend is suitable, I've been advised.

2. I'm doing this for aesthetical purposes, the brick used is quite ugly and monotone.

stuart45

Have you got a photo of the front? 

FreeBear

aoleks said:

1. not victorian row house, 1950s ex-council. cavity wall + insulation. k-rend is suitable, I've been advised.

2. I'm doing this for aesthetical purposes, the brick used is quite ugly and monotone.

OK. K-Rend it is then.

Still worth adding some insulation to the walls before rendering. It will bump up the cost, but if done well, it will help to keep the heat in. And in the current climate, improve your EPC and make it more attractive to potential buyers when you come to sell.

aoleks

house is EPC rating C, there are plugged holes in the wall, so we know it's insulated. extremely warm and efficient on gas.

what can the council do if they don't like it? can I be made to take it off?

Section62

aoleks said:

I know no planning permission is required...

How have you checked this? Have the council confirmed that is the case?

aoleks said:

...but the wording around "materials of a similar appearance" is vague.

Where is that wording?


Are there any restrictive covenants on the property?

aoleks

there are restrictive covenants, but only for structural work. nothing relating to appearance.

Planning Permission | External walls | Planning Portal

"Outside these areas, cladding may be carried out without having to first apply for planning permission provided the materials are of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the house."

PS: my issue is with the logical argument that using materials similar in appearance would somehow guarantee anything. having said that, if I was to paint my house white (I'm allowed to without planning permission, no one can say anything), it would stand out in exactly the same way it would stand out if rendered in white.

what's the difference then, as long as I'm doing something that's also good for the environment?

Belenus

aoleks said:

.....

2. I'm doing this for aesthetical purposes, the brick used is quite ugly and monotone.

If you render your house, the other houses will still presumably have quite ugly brickwork.

Will your rendered house actually look better or might it stick out like a sore thumb and possibly look even worse? 

Have you seen similar properties were one terraced house in a row has had similar rendering done?

I am being the Devils Advocate here and encouraging you to consider possible downsides.

Section62

aoleks said:

there are restrictive covenants, but only for structural work. nothing relating to appearance.

Is that the exact wording?  It would be unusual (in my experience) for there not to be restrictions on external changes - there was a period where people were so excited with their new opportunity to RTB that one of the first things they did was make 'their' home distinctive from all the others on the estate.  The consequence was some very poor choices.

After that it was common (possibly near universal) for LA's to use restrictive covenants over most things, up to and including conditions that cover all changes to the structure.  In this sense 'structure' would refer to the building, not the structural parts of the building.

If you are only limited in relation to structural work you would be very fortunate, although bear in mind the neighbours may also be free to make fairly radical changes to their properties if they own.

aoleks said:

Planning Permission | External walls | Planning Portal

"Outside these areas, cladding may be carried out without having to first apply for planning permission provided the materials are of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the house."

PS: my issue is with the logical argument that using materials similar in appearance would somehow guarantee anything.

There's a problem here that that website is only offering generic advice. Even outside the areas referred to, in some situations planning consent will be required (on a case-by-case basis).

Therefore the phrase "provided the materials are of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the house" is offering a useful caveat which gives that section the meaning "it might be OK, unless the council decides it isn't OK".

It would be difficult to argue that a rendered and painted wall has a "similar appearance" to a natural facing brick wall.

aoleks said:

having said that, if I was to paint my house white (I'm allowed to without planning permission, no one can say anything), it would stand out in exactly the same way it would stand out if rendered in white.

what's the difference then, as long as I'm doing something that's also good for the environment?

If this is a hypothetical situation, then no, in some cases you wouldn't be able to paint the house without first getting planning consent.

Whether or not that applies in your case will depend on any covenants and/or planning restrictions.


Taking a step back, there is a risk of you devaluing your property by rendering it.  Natural brick/stone is the construction type with about the least maintenance requirement you can get.  As soon as you apply render (and paint) you create an additional maintenance liability - i.e. the need to repaint, repair cracks in the render, and after a period of time, completely replacing the render when it debonds.  Given the choice of buying identical properties with brick or render I would definitely go for the brick one, and in general brick (or stone) is seen as a more luxurious finish.

There's also an issue that rendering is often done to hide failed and spoiled brickwork and structural issues.  A decent surveyor should be slightly suspicious of a property which has been rendered in a terrace of identical brick-built ones.

It isn't a huge issue, but I think it likely - unless you also add external insulation - that you will be spending money to end up with a property worth slightly less, and one future buyers (or perhaps more likely their lenders) will have suspicions about.