Curtilage in practice: Lessons from a recent Planning Inspectorate appeal

The concept of ‘curtilage’ is a familiar but often underappreciated feature of planning law. It draws the boundary of land which is in use due to its association with a dwellinghouse or other asset. The concept appears frequently in the context of householder permitted development (“PD”) rights, lawful development certificate (“LDC”) applications and listed building consent applications. It also appears in connection with nationally significant infrastructure applications and environmental impact assessments, especially when allocating weight and sensitivity to receptors. Depsite its application across the planning regime, it can be difficult to define in practice.

Recent case law and appeal decisions continue to demonstrate that disputes over the status and extent of curtilage are both common and highly fact-sensitive. In particular, they highlight a recurring issue; development assumed to benefit from PD rights may fall outside the scope of those rights simply because it is not within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.  In this update, we consider the legal principles and draw out practical points from a recent Planning Inspectorate (“PINS”) appeal decision.

The Legal Framework

Despite its importance, “curtilage” has no comprehensive statutory definition in planning legislation. Instead, its meaning has developed through case law and is applied as a matter of planning judgment in each case.

The case of Methuen-Campbell v Walters [1979] 1 QB 525 suggests that at its core, curtilage refers to land which is so intimately associated with a building that it is properly regarded as “part and parcel” of it.

Dyer v Dorset County Council [1988] 3 WLR 213 further confirmed that curtilage is typically a relatively limited extension to the building and questions of scale and distance are important. Large or distant land is unlikely to qualify.

The Courts have consistently emphasised that the question is one of fact and degree, with no single determinative test. However, four recurring considerations can be identified from the case law:

1. Physical relationship/proximity;
2. Layout and enclosure (including barriers and fencing);
3. Ownership (historic and current);
4. Functional use (i.e. is it ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling?)

Whilst proximity and enclosure may be relevant, the key question remains whether the land is so “intimately associated” with the dwelling such that it forms part of its curtilage. That formulation is reflected in Hampshire County Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Ors [2020] EWHC 959 (Admin).

More recent case law including Hiley v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 1289 (Admin) considered curtilage and physical separation. It also concluded that adjacency and functional linkage would not automatically render land as falling within the curtilage. There was a reinforcement that defining curtilage is not a precise science.

Curtilage and Permitted Development

Curtilage can become particularly significant because many PD rights are expressly limited to development carried out “within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”. An example of this would be Class E of Part 1 to The Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“the Order”) which grants permission for the provision of outbuildings and enclosures incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, but only where they are located within its curtilage.

As a result, determining whether land falls within the curtilage is often a threshold question in LDC appeals. If the land in question is found not to be curtilage, then PD rights will simply not be available, regardless of whether the proposed development would otherwise comply with the relevant limitations set out in the Order.

Insights from recent PINs appeal

A common assumption is that all land within single ownership or title forms part of the curtilage. Appeal decisions and case law continue to confirm that this is not always the case.

An appeal decision dated 6 May 2026 tested whether a garden room fell within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse (appeal reef APP/C4235/X/25/3368811). The main issue considered by the Inspector was whether Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council’s (“the Council”) decision to refuse the application was well founded. The appellant had to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the proposed garden room comprising a home gym, games room, and storage area would accord with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Order.

The Council did not dispute that the size/make-up of the proposed garden room was in accordance with the Order, nor did they dispute that the proposal would be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. They did however, contend that the proposal would not be within the curtilage of the dwelling, and thus would not be covered by PD.

The Inspector observed at paragraph 8: “The term ‘curtilage’ is a term of art. There is no single authoritative definition of the term, but it should not be confused with the concept of a ‘planning unit.’”

Applying the familiar fact-and-degree assessment, the Inspector attached weight to the physical unity of the land, the absence of any dividing barrier, the merged title and continuous ownership since 1934, and the evidence that the land had long functioned as a single domestic garden.

On that basis, the Inspector concluded that the land was “part and parcel of the same enclosure” and therefore fell within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and would accord with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Order.

Listed Buildings

Curtilage is of central importance in the context of listed buildings. Under section 1(5)(b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, certain structures within the curtilage of a listed building may themselves be treated as part of the listed building.

This can have significant implications. Works to structures which may appear physically separate from the principal building may require listed building consent if they are found to fall within its curtilage. The  assessment is fact-specific and turns on matters such as historical ownership, layout and functional relationship.  It is also imporant to note that the setting of a heritage asset and the asset’s curtilage may not have the same extent.

NSIPs and Environmental Impact Assessment

In the NSIP and EIA context, questions of curtilage can arise indirectly but are nonetheless important in defining both the extent of the project and the sensitivity of receptors.

Firstly, the identification of what land is functionally and physically associated with buildings or operational uses may inform the proper characterisation of the “project” for EIA purposes. The EIA regime requires assessment of development as a whole.

Secondly, curtilage is relevant when identifying receptors. Land forming part of a residential curtilage will often attract a higher sensitivity in relation to effects such as noise, visual impact and amenity than land in agricultural or other non-domestic use. The categorisation of land in this way can therefore affect both the assessment methodology and the weight given to particular impacts.

Common land

It is important to note that the concept of curtilage is also relevant under the Commons Act 2016 but that its scope is interpreted in a different way. If works are proposed to registered common land, express consent from the Secretary of State is required unless the land is de-registered. This can be achieved either by the provision of exchange land under section 16 or by evidencing that the land was covered by a building or was within the curtilage of a building since the date of provisional registration under Schedule 2, paragraph 6.

A case of note which we advised on is Blackbushe Airport Ltd v Hampshire County Council [2021] CA Civ 398 which clarified that the test for curtilage is not simply whether the land forms part of an “integral whole” with the building or forms part of a single “unit”. Whilst land which is “part and parcel” with a building might form an “integral whole”, it does not follow that where land is in the same integral whole with a building it forms part of its curtilage.

Practical implications

For developers, landowners and practitioners alike, curtilage remains a potential source of risk. There are a number of practical points to note:

• Title is not determinative; it should not be assumed to define curtilage;
• Edge land carries a risk of not being classified as curtilage. Paddocks, side plots and physically or visually separate parcels may fall within this grey area;
• Where relevant, obtaining an LDC may be advisable where there is uncertainty as it can provide clarity before works are undertaken;
• The definition of curtilage is nuanced and can vary between different statutes affecting the planning regime.

If you have any questions or require any advice in relation to curtilage, then please do not hesitate to contact Paula McGeady or Adam Richards in our Planning & Compulsory Purchase team who will be happy to assist.