A third of the roof was covered in pantiles, the rest thatched. The inspector heard that it had been like this for many years, reflecting the fact that the building had previously been two separate cottages. The appellant sought to reinstate thatch on the pantiled area. The inspector saw no evidence that thatch had been used previously, or if it had been what form it had taken.
Given the length of time the pantiles had been present, he considered that they were an important element of the historic evolution of the property. They highlighted not just the manner in which the building had been divided previously but also the way roofing materials had changed over the years, he remarked.
The appellant argued that the former division could be reflected in the thatching style. The inspector responded that using thatch across the entire building would give a more uniform finish and any variation in the roof planes would not be as pronounced. Consequently, it would not be apparent that the property had previously been two cottages.
DCS Number 100-069-581
Inspector Jeremy Sargent; Written representations.