minor Update on curtilage definitions

An application for a certificate of lawful existing use was sought and refused for the siting of a cage for the keeping of birds for the domestic need or personal enjoyment of the occupants of a dwelling. The application REF 0057/18 that was originally submitted to Dartmoor National Park Authority was refused on 26 March 2018 and subsequently appealed (REF APP/J9497/X/18/3200939). The appeal was dismissed on 1 November 2018.

Why is this appeal decision useful?

There are 2 issues raised in this decision that are worth noting.

1 - A clear reminder that the 10 year rule is somewhat irrelevant as far as residential use goes and an established ‘land use’ of residential - it is simply a matter of fact and degree whether an area is considered curtilage or not.

2 – The Inspector dismissed the appeal as he felt the proposed siting (of a birdhouse for keeping recreational poultry ancillary to the dwelling house i.e. pets) was not ‘intimately associated’ - even though it was place within domestic gardens that were well cared for and mown, His reasons for this conclusion were that the site was:

i) not within unbroken eyesight of the main dwelling (i.e. creating a visual degree of separation) and;
​
ii) that the proposed site was at a lower level topographically.

The concept of the subject site not being visible from the dwelling and therefore not being intimately connected is interesting as a listed building definition of what could be curtilage listed may well apply from a historic environment stance.