Crockett v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another: Admn 24 Oct 2002

The applicant built a shed on land behind his bungalow, but without planning consent. The planning authority issued enforcement proceedings. He appealed, contending that it fell within the Order. The inspector visited the property, and decided that it was not within the curtilage of the house. The land owner appealed.
Held: Whether the shed was within the curtilage of the house was a question of fact and degree. The inspector had correctly applied the law, and also was right to amplify the evidence with knowledge from his site visit. His decision was not to be challenged. The statutory context of these and criminal proceedings was quite different, and there was no rule placing a similar duty of disclosure on the inspector.


Mr Justice Maurice Kay


Gazette 07-Nov-2002


Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Sch 2 Part I Class E


England and Wales


CitedDyer v Dorset County Council CA 1988
The court discussed what was meant by the curtilage of the appellant’s house: ‘Thus the sole issue is whether Mr Dyer’s house is or is not within the curtilage of another building or, by the application of section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, . .
CitedMethuen-Campbell v Walters CA 1978
The curtilage of a house is narrowly confined to the area surrounding it and did not extend to a paddock. Buckley LJ said: ‘In my judgment, for one corporeal hereditament to fall within the curtilage of another, the former must be so intimately . .
CitedMcAlpine v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another QBD 6-Dec-1994
The extent of a curtilage was to be determined as at the time when a dispute arose, but historical evidence remained relevant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.177946