General development order — Refusal of permission for a tennis court — Whether permitted development — Whether within the curtilage of the dwelling — Application by owner dismissed
The applicant is the owner of Robins Cottage, Upper Wardley, Milland, West Sussex, a substantial detached dwelling. The applicant constructed a tennis court some 100 m distant from the house at the western end of an open field beyond an area of undergrowth and rough grassland and a partial and indistinct line of trees and shrubs. His appeal against the decision of the second respondents, Chichester District Council, to refuse him permission to retain the tennis court, was dismissed by the first respondent’s inspector. The inspector had decided that the field was separate and distinct from the cultivated garden attached to the house and the house and tennis court did not have the appearance of being within the same enclosure. Accordingly, the tennis court did not constitute permitted development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse pursuant to Class E of Part I of Schedule 2 to the General Development Order 1988 and he was entitled to dismiss the appeal against the refusal of planning permission.
The applicant applied to quash that decision on the ground that there had been an error of law and that proper regard had not been had to the authorities on the meaning of curtilage.
Held The application was dismissed.
The inspector was entitled to follow the conclusion of the inspector in T/APP/5178/C82/212/G4 that the phrase “curtilage of a building” has no precise limits but must be considered according to the facts of each particular case. The inspector applied that test and was entitled to conclude, as he had done, that the tennis court was outside the curtilage on the facts as he found them. He had concluded that the tennis court was highly obtrusive in the open countryside and was quite out of keeping in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Methuen-Cambell v Walters (1978) 247 EG 899 referred to.
Hugh Donovan (instructed by Mackarness & Lunt, of Petersfield) appeared for the applicant; and Robert Jay (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment. The second respondents, Chichester District Council, did not appear and were not represented.