Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application – Erection of detached outbuilding together with hardstanding (Proposed Lawful Development Certificate).

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  The Director of Corporate Services referred the Sub-Committee to the recent Planning Court case of Challenge Fencing Limited v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government and Elmbridge Borough Council which considered general propositions as to whether land is within the curtilage of a building.  An extract of the Judgement is at ‘Annex A’.

Ward Member, Councillor Tony Owen, addressed the Sub-Committee as to this test and referred to the history and layout of the site.  The occupier had acquired some additional land from the rear gardens of two neighbouring properties and had incorporated it with the land originally forming part of 80 Crescent Drive. That new area of land was separated from the remaining curtilage of 80 Crescent Drive by fencing and two gates and from the other dwellings.  The proposed garage, along with its hardstanding would extend adjacent to most the boundary of the fenced off area with Shepperton Road. Taking account of the criteria, Councillor Owen concluded that area of land was not within the curtilage of 80 Crescent Drive and he moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett J.P. advised he had viewed Google Earth and agreed with Councillor Owen and seconded refusal. He did wonder if there was an intention to create a site for development

Councillor Fawthrop referred to planning appeal decision (APP/G5180/X/09/2118423) at  64 Great Thrift, Petts Wood, where an area of and had been entirely fenced off and separated from the original rear garden of the property concerned and requested that a copy of the decision be appended to these minutes, ‘Annex B’.

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED that a CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT BE REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. The application site, taking account of its physical layout, its ownership past and present and its use and function, both past and present, does not fall within the curtilage of No 80 Crescent Drive. As a result the land does not benefit from the permitted development rights associated with No 80 Crescent drive and therefore  the proposed would not constitute permitted development under Classes E and F of Part 1 and Class B of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.