Why Choose GRP Door Canopies Rather Than Alternative Roofing Materials?


Although the benefits of GRP door canopies is well known, a good number of people still have some misconceptions as far as GRP roofing is concerned, assuming that GRP door canopies are unsuitable for certain properties, or provide less protection than door canopies made from alternative materials such as timber, tile and felt roofing.

The truth is that when compared to almost any alternative, GRP door canopies remain the clear preference, regardless of the type of property or the circumstances. In this article we’ll look briefly at some of the different types of door canopy available, specifically the different styles and materials, and see how GRP, Glass Reinforced Polyester or fibreglass as it is variously known, compares.

One of the first concerns many people have when considering GRP door canopies is with regard to the way they look. This is clearly understandable, because whether you are looking to sell your property, or remain in it, you’ll naturally be anxious to ensure that its visual appeal is improved through the addition of a door canopy, and that such a canopy doesn’t in any way detract from the style of the property. Certainly if the wrong style is chosen the contrast between the entrance canopy and the rest of the property can be unfortunate, and it is for this reason that some people tend to consider timber, tile and lead roofing rather than GRP roofing.

However, this is to assume that GRP roofing has not developed since its initial popularity as a building material in the 1970s and 1980s. Certainly several decades ago fibreglass roofing was fairly limited as far as the styles and colours are concerned, but today manufacturing methods have vastly improved. It is now possible to purchase GRP canopies which are designed and built to look exactly like alternative materials such as timber, tile or even lead roofing.

Indeed, a very significant number of porch canopies and entrance canopies which can be seen today are made from GRP, even though you may not think so to look at them. Even close up there are many door canopies made from fibreglass which look just like lead roofing, tiled roofing or timber framed roofing. So as far as appearance is concerned, there really is no reason to dismiss GRP door canopies since they can be designed to blend in with the age and style of the property, and mimic the appearance of other roofing materials exceptionally well.

But clearly the visual appearance is not the only issue, and when thinking about the various alternatives, usually considered to be timber, tile or lead, GRP roofing holds up very well. For example, it’s important to think about the long term maintenance of a porch canopy. Being situated right over the front door it is very visible, and it will be important to make sure it remains well looked after.

Lead roofing can be very expensive to maintain or repair, tiles can easily be broken, blown off or leak, felt roofing has a tendency to warp, stretch and split, and timbers will quickly absorb any moisture and warp, crack or twist. However, GRP door canopies need only a brief wipe with a damp cloth from time to time to keep them looking in a first class condition. So as far as maintenance is concerned, GRP roofing is a clear winner.

There is also of course the small matter of having the canopy installed in the first place, and this will involve both cost and temporary inconvenience, which should be kept to a minimum. Lead roofing is very expensive, and as it is so heavy and requires a specialist fitting service, expensive to install. Extra supports are required to bear the weight, and this will add to the time and cost of installation.

Timber framed roofing and tiled roofing similarly tend to require additional support and will take time to install. However, GRP door canopies are built off site, and can be fitted by a single contractor in a very short space of time. As they’re self supporting, the cost is very low and the installation the quickest there is, making GRP roofing a clear winner when compared to most alternatives.


Source by Justin Arnold