EXCLUSIVECouple had to endure year-long £20,000 battle with planning officials over the colour of their roof - even though it was same as 30 neighbouring houses and no one had complained

• e-mail

A couple have told how a year-long petty row with officialdom over the colour of their roof has left them £20,000 out of pocket.

Leona and Laurence Jacobson spent their life savings to buy a derelict property and transform it into their dream family home.

Despite having the support of neighbours and the local parish council and the detached house not being a listed building or in a conservation area, planning officers told them they couldn't have a grey slate roof.

They said it had to stick to the 1970s look of the existing properties in their cul-de-sac in Highcliffe, Christchurch, Dorset.

Yet aerial photographs of their smart neighbourhood appeared to blow the roof off the council's case by revealing that about 30 houses had grey roofs.

Leona and Laurence Jacobson say they've spent their life savings on their dream home, transforming a derelict house into a family home

The couple's house in Highcliffe, Christchurch, Dorset under construction and with their new grey roof

Despite their roof colour matching 30 other neighbouring properties, planning officials told the couple they couldn't have their grey slate roof and might now be forced to replace it

The Jacobsons appealed the decision but when the process was hit by lengthy delays they were forced to press ahead with the roof and agreed in principle with a planning officer they would paint it brown if they lost.

They were dismayed when a planning inspector eventually sided with the local council and dismissed their case.

They faced enforcement action that would have led to them repainting the roof or replacing it with a brown one, costing another £20,000.

As they were getting quotes to re-roof the property, council officers inexplicably changed their minds and told them it would not be in the public interest to enforce the breach.

It brought an end to the saga that rumbled on for almost 11 months and would also have cost the taxpayer thousands of pounds.

The couple, both 43, who have two sons aged four and seven, estimate they have spent about £20,000 on the planning appeal, extra build costs and seven months' rent they had not planned on. The bill to the taxpayer is likely to be the same amount.

They have called the process 'ludicrous' and questioned the council's reasoning.

The Jacobsons bought the property for £800,000 in 2022 after it had sat empty for 20 years.

Mrs Jacobson said: 'I grew up in the area but moved away for work. We moved back because we wanted the kids to grow up by the sea like I got to.

'We were due to get planning permission in February 2023 but they found bat remnants so we had to wait until the summer for the bat survey. But the planning officer told us our application was approved subject to that.

'Then suddenly when we got the planning permission there was a condition in there saying we can't use any of the materials we wanted - no rendering or cladding and we couldn't have the slate tiles we wanted, they said it needed to match the existing building.

'We designed the house in accordance with the local neighbourhood plan, but the council seemingly ignored that plan and said 'no you need to keep it as a 70s building.'

'Every other renovation and new build house in the area has some combination of rendering, cladding and slate roof.

'The parish council even wrote to them and said if you don't approve this you're effectively making the neighbourhood plan obsolete. But the planning office wouldn't budge.

'We then appealed to the planning inspectorate in July 2023. It's supposed to take 3-6 months but when we chased it up they still hadn't even assigned an inspector by January.

'If we hadn't started the works when we did we wouldn't have been able to finish, due to finances, and we got to the point where we needed to start putting the roof on.

'By February we were absolutely desperate, it had been so wet, we couldn't wait any longer. So we went to the planning officer and said we have to put the tiles on so can we put the grey and if we lose the appeal we will have to paint them and they agreed.

'It was a bit of a gamble but everyone said we had a great chance of winning. We submitted 40 pages of evidence to show the materials' prevalence.

'We have been paying rent and our mortgage, as well as two lots of council tax, and it is killing us.

'I spoke to the people who do the roof painting and they said they've never heard of anything like this before. People are allowed to have their roof whatever colour they want as long as it's not a conservation area.

'In Elphinstone Road the developers have been allowed all the materials we wanted. There's a house in Montague Road, which we can see from our house, which was in the neighbourhood plan as an example of good design, also using the materials we wanted.

'I don't know how else to interpret it apart from they are allowing it for developers but not for ordinary families. Maybe because they know ordinary families don't have the time and money to fight.

'All we wanted was to turn a derelict house into our dream family home. No neighbours objected to the materials and yet the council say no.

'It's not a conservation area, the house is not listed, they're just 1970s houses - it makes no sense.

'We are so relieved that the enforcement team have taken a pragmatic and common sense approach that means we can continue building our family home without this hanging over us anymore.

'But the planning office are making ridiculous decisions that seem inconsistent between normal families vs developers. The system is broken.'

A BCP Council spokesperson said: 'After reviewing the planning history and recent appeal decision, we concluded that it was not in the public interest to pursue formal enforcement action in this instance.

'Painting the roof tiles brown was not considered to be a viable long-term option, so any subsequent enforcement would require the grey tiles to be removed and replaced with brown.

'The property owner had a 'fall-back position' whereby they could subsequently alter the roof of a dwelling as 'permitted development' without applying for formal planning permission should they choose. This could include re-roofing with an alternative tile colour.

'Because of this, in the interests of saving public money, and also having received no public complaints in this case, it was decided not to pursue formal enforcement action.

'Despite this, the property remains in breach of planning control, and it is very disappointing from a design point of view that the appropriate coloured tiles were not used in the first instance.'