Appeal 6003132

The appeal is invalid and therefore I am unable to determine it.

An application for costs was made against Chichester District Council by [name]. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal is submitted on the basis that the Council failed to give notice of its decision within the statutory period. It is evident from the information before me that the Council’s failure to give notice of its decision has arisen because the application was not validated. Consequently, there is no decision notice. The Council has clarified that, had a decision been made, it would have refused planning permission due to the development’s effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. I shall define the main issues accordingly.

The main issues are: - whether or not the planning application should have been validated by the Council; and, if I find it should have been validated, - the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

A planning application for the erection of an incidental detached home office and stables and feed/machine store and extension of existing vehicle track was submitted on 17 September 2025 as a householder application. The Council wrote to the applicant on 26 September 2025 to advise that the application was incomplete and could not be validated as a householder application.

On 26 September 2025 the appellant served a notice on the Council under the validation dispute process at Article 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO). This was on the basis that the Council had accepted that the site comprised one planning unit in residential use in earlier decisions. In response the Council maintained its position that the development is outside of the domestic curtilage of the dwelling and thus required full planning permission including a change of use of the land to residential use.

The DMPO defines a householder application as “an application for planning permission for development for an existing dwellinghouse, or development within the curtilage of such a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, or an application for any consent, agreement or approval required by or under a planning permission, development order or local development order in relation to such development.”

There is no legal definition of ‘curtilage’. The extent of the curtilage of a building is a question of fact and degree, and it is therefore a matter for the decision maker. Consideration of whether land falls within a curtilage must be decided on the basis of factual evidence. For land to fall within the curtilage of a building, it must be intimately associated with the building, forming part and parcel of the building. Other factors to consider are the physical layout of the building and the land, ownership and the function of the land, including its association with the host building, and whether the land serves the purpose of the house or building in some necessary or reasonably useful way.

The site comprises a long, narrow parcel of land served by a single access. The host dwelling is located to the north of the site in proximity to ancillary outbuildings. This area appears residential in character and closely associated with the host dwelling. The central and southern parts of the site comprise a grassed area which contains a number of mature trees and an area which accommodates the appellant’s pet animals, poultry and livestock.

Extracts of the Ecological Assessment submitted in relation to application 20/01053/FUL describe the central part of the site as a field of long grassland with orchard trees, which the accompanying images indicate was separated from the area surrounding [site address] by a fence and five-bar gate. This indicates that at that time, the southern and central parts of the site differed in character and function and were physically distinct from the northern part of the site, with its residential character.

I observed at my site visit that the gate and fence have been removed and long grass cut back within the central part of the site. Nonetheless, I also observed that the southern and central parts of the site still appeared to differ in character and function from the residential character of the northern part of the site. Furthermore, there is no clear, precise and unambiguous evidence before me that these parts of the site form part and parcel of the dwelling, that they have an intimate association or clear functional link with the remainder of land within the curtilage of the host dwelling or that they are used for a purpose incidental to the use of the dwellinghouse. Given this there is no compelling evidence before me that the whole of the site is within the curtilage of the dwelling.

The appellant submits that the site forms one planning unit, and in support of this applications determined by the Council which included the whole site1 are referenced. However, the concepts of curtilage and planning units are distinct and separate. The 2 will sometimes cover the same area on the ground, but that will not always be the case and does not in any event mean that they are the same thing. Additionally, different uses can exist within a single site and the inclusion of the whole of the site within these applications does not evidence that all parts of the site are in the same use or that they form part of the curtilage of the dwelling. [name] note that the Council accepted planning applications which included the whole site, this merely indicates that they did not challenge the then applicant’s suggestion that it was a single planning unit. This does not constitute evidence that the whole site is in residential use.

Drawing on the above, even if the site comprises a single planning unit, that does not mean that all parts of the site are in residential use and, based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, there is no compelling evidence that the whole of the site forms part of the curtilage of the dwelling. As the development involves land beyond the curtilage of a dwelling, it follows that it does not comprise householder development as defined by the DMPO.

Section 79(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that if, before or during the determination of an appeal, the Secretary of State forms the opinion that planning permission for that development could not have been granted by the local planning authority, they may decline to determine the appeal. [name] have found that the development does not comprise householder development, it follows that householder planning permission cannot be granted. Given this, the appeal is invalid.

In this instance I have found that the original application did not comply with the requirements of the DMPO and thus it was invalid. I am unable to determine the appeal, and it is not necessary for me to consider the merits of the development.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that planning permission could not have been granted by the local planning authority due to the procedural failings that I have identified, and I am unable to consider the planning merits of the appeal. I therefore conclude that the appeal is invalid, I decline to determine it and shall take no further action.