The Court was asked whether a planning permission granted permission for the use of a piece of land for purposes ancillary to a dwelling house, so that that land became part of the curtilage of the house, and permitted the construction of a tennis court and swimming pool. The defendant had had planning permission, but then had built property outside the lines of the original development. He appealed an enforcement notice saying that the plans should not have been taken into account.
Held: The rule that plans submitted with an application were not part of the permission granted applied only to outline permissions. On a full grant the plans supplied became incorporated within the permission. The curtilage defined in the plan still applied, and the defendant’s appeal failed.
Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Toulson
Times 30-Mar-2009, [2009] EWCA Civ 476, [2009] JPL 1597, [2009] PTSR (CS) 41, [2010] 1 P and CR 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 20-Jun-2008
. .
Cited – Regina v Ashford Borough Council ex parte Shepway District Council Admn 7-May-1998
The court set out the general rule in construing an outline planning permission which was clear, unambiguous and valid on its face. Regard could be had only to the planning permission itself and any conditions and the express reasons for them. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.326972
