Adding facilities to one’s home may raise the prospect of a more congenial lifestyle, but care must be taken when dealing with planning applications.
In a recent case, the owner of a dwelling built in 1995 decided, in 1998, to add a garage and a dormer window. The planning application was accompanied by a new (extended) site plan. Planning permission was granted but because there was no request for a change of use of the land, the planning approval did not, in law, increase the curtilege of the property.
Everything passed without comment until some time later, when a swimming pool and tennis court were built outside the original curtilege of the land. Unfortunately for the owner, the land outside the curtilege of the property was agricultural land and no application for change of use of the land had been granted. The council issued an enforcement notice, requiring the owner to return the land to use as agricultural land.
The owner of the house argued that the 1998 plan had increased the curtilege of the property, so use of land shown on the plan as being for residential purposes did not require permission for change of use.
The matter reached the Court of Appeal. The Court considered that planning permission for a new dwelling would contain an implied permission for a change of use if required. However, an extension to a dwelling does not necessarily do so. In this case, the 1998 permission related to a development which was shown to be within the plans contained with the original planning application. The swimming pool and tennis court, however, were outside the original curtilege of the land. The 1998 permission had not extended that and had not created any permission for change of use of the land.
Partner Note
Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] WLR(D) 107.
No comments:
Post a Comment