®Planning appeal decision
Dane Court, Copt Hill, Danbury, Chelmsford, CM3 4NW
the construction of a single-storey store
- Authority
- Chelmsford Borough Council
- Appeal type
- ldc · Lawful Development Certificate
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- employment-industrial · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- King T
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the land where the proposed building would be sited falls within the curtilage of the dwelling and therefore whether the proposal can be considered as permitted development in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015
What decided it
The proposed store lacked an intimate or necessary relationship with the dwelling, being distanced in excess of 50m and having no functional association with the residential use, and therefore did not form part and parcel of the building as required by the curtilage test.
Judgments cited: Sumption v LB Greenwich & Rokos [2007] EWHC 2776 (Admin); Sinclair-Lockhart's Trustees v Central Land Board [1950] 1 P. & C.R. 195; Dyer v Dorset CC [1989]; SSETR v Skerritts of Nottingham [2000]; Methuen-Campbell v Walters [1979] 1 QB 525; R (on the application of Hampshire CC) v SSE [2021] EWCA Civ 398
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.