Development — General Development Order — Permitted development within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse — Summer house — Large garden — Whether development within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse — Appeal dismissed
The appellant is the occupier of a cottage and four and half acres of gardens. There are well-cut lawns near the dwellinghouse and rough grass over the rest of the grounds, which are largely neglected. In the rough part of the gardens, he erected a summer house measuring some ten feet by six feet. Some years later he applied for planning permission to retain the building. The application was refused, and, within the time-limit of four years, the local planning authority issued an enforcement notice alleging a breach of planning control.
The appellant’s appeal against that notice was dismissed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, by his inspector. The inspector considered as material the fact that the planning officer had recommended that planning permission should have been granted, the prevailing green belt policy uses, and the submission by the appellant that had the summer house been a part of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, it would have been permitted development. The erection of certain buildings is permitted development if the buildings are erected “within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”: class I.3, Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 (SI 289).
Held The appeal was dismissed. The inspector had given clear reasons for his decision; he had considered the relevant policies for the area and the scale of the development.
The inspector had considered the submission that had the building been within the curtilage it would have been permitted development. The importance of identifying the curtilage of a dwellinghouse is to identify its nature and extent and that it must serve the purposes of the dwelling in some necessary or useful manner. On the facts in this case, the building was not on land that could be described as part of the curtilage; the land on which the summer house stood did not serve the dwellinghouse. The erection of the building therefore fell outside class I.3 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977. The inspector had properly considered this aspect.
Kevin Leigh (instructed by Jefferies, of Westcliff-on-Sea) appeared for the appellant; and Stephen Hockman (instructed by the solicitor to Epping Forest District Council) appeared for the second respondent. The first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, did not appear and was not represented.
