A Class E outbuilding has survived enforcement action in Wellingborough after an Inspector ruled that the council measured the garden building’s height from the wrong part of a sloping site. The appeal was allowed on 26th October 2026 and the enforcement notice was quashed.
North Northamptonshire Council argued that the flat-roof building at 9 Orlando Road exceeded the 2.5-metre height and eaves limits. Although its rear wall measured 2.85 metres from lower ground, the Inspector concluded that the relevant measurement was 2.35 metres from the highest adjacent ground level.
I think this Class E outbuilding decision will be useful well beyond one Northamptonshire garden. It shows how a small difference in the way height is measured can decide whether a substantial structure is permitted development, and why enforcement decisions must start with the precise wording of the General Permitted Development Order.
How the Class E outbuilding became an appeal
The council issued its enforcement notice on 26th May 2026 alleging that a rear-garden outbuilding had been erected without planning permission. It required the building to be removed in its entirety, together with associated works and debris, within four months. The appeal was brought by Parminder Bassi under ground (c) of section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Ground (c) concerns whether the matters alleged, if they occurred, amount to a breach of planning control. Unlike an appeal seeking planning permission on the merits, the central question is whether permission is already available, including through permitted development rights.
The notice itself contained a drafting error. It referred to section 171A(1)(b), which concerns failure to comply with a planning condition or limitation, although the allegation was unauthorised building operations. Inspector Jonathan Edwards corrected that reference to section 171A(1)(a) using section 176 powers. The error did not cause injustice and was not the reason the notice was ultimately quashed.
Incidental use and the Class E outbuilding test
The Inspector saw a single-storey structure with rendered blockwork walls and a flat roof. Its construction was a building operation for planning purposes, so it needed a grant of planning permission. The appellant relied on Part 1 Class E of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
The building stood in the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and was being used to store domestic belongings. That use had a functional relationship with the main home and was incidental to its enjoyment. The Inspector therefore accepted that Class E could apply. There was no evidence that those permitted development rights had been removed for the property.
For this Class E outbuilding, the remaining dispute was height. The council did not pursue allegations of non-compliance with other Class E limitations or conditions. Our Class E outbuildings guide explains the full set of restrictions, including curtilage, coverage, use, height, eaves and the limits near a boundary.
Why the 2.85-metre rear wall did not defeat Class E
The appellant supplied scaled elevations, sections and a floor plan. The council did not say those drawings were inaccurate, and the Inspector considered them a true representation of the building. The land slopes so that the highest ground adjoins the front elevation.
Measured at that high point, the building stood 2.35 metres above ground. Measured beside the rear wall, where the ground falls away, its apparent height rose to 2.85 metres. The council treated that larger figure as evidence that the Class E limits had been broken.
Article 2(2) of the GPDO defines ground level for a building on non-uniform land by reference to the highest part of the ground immediately adjacent to the building. The Inspector said that “the height of the front of the building rather than the rear wall should be used” for the relevant building-height test.
That distinction decided the Class E outbuilding issue: the legally measured overall height was 2.35 metres, below the 2.5-metre limit. The Inspector also concluded, by reference to the September 2019 government technical guidance, that eaves height should be assessed from the same relevant ground level. On this flat-roof structure, the relevant eaves measurement was also 2.35 metres.
This reasoning does not mean an applicant can ignore changes to ground levels or assume that the tallest visible wall is irrelevant in every circumstance. The level must be determined under the particular statutory definition, supported by accurate site sections and evidence of the ground next to the structure. Our page on measurements under permitted development gives the broader measurement context.
Neighbour objections could not override permitted development
The council and interested parties raised concerns about the building’s effect on neighbouring living conditions and local character. The Inspector acknowledged that homes and gardens to the rear were on significantly lower land and that the outbuilding was therefore an obvious feature from those properties.
However, the appeal was not a free-standing assessment of whether the building would be acceptable if planning permission had to be applied for. Once the Inspector found the building complied with Class E, Article 3(1) of the GPDO supplied the necessary planning permission. The objections about ordinary planning merits could not turn permitted development into a breach of planning control.
The Inspector upheld ground (c), corrected the error in the notice and quashed it. The Class E outbuilding therefore remained in place under the permitted development right identified in the decision. This was not the grant of a new discretionary householder permission, nor a finding that all potentially intrusive outbuildings are acceptable.
The practical lesson is to establish the proper planning unit and curtilage, intended use, neighbouring ground levels and precise height measurements before issuing or challenging an enforcement notice. The enforcement appeal grounds guide explains why ground (c) differs from the other statutory routes.
What designers and enforcement officers should take away
A Class E outbuilding on sloping ground should be documented with reliable spot levels and elevations, rather than a single dimension taken from the most exposed wall. The date and condition of the surrounding land may also require evidence. If a structure is close to a boundary, apply the exact Class E height tests and avoid substituting visual impression for statutory measurement.
It is equally important not to overlook changes of use. This appeal concerned a building used incidentally for domestic storage, not independent residential accommodation or a commercial unit. Those alternative uses can raise different planning questions.
Finally, a council’s enforcement notice has to identify the correct breach. Here the Inspector was able to correct a mistaken statutory subsection without injustice. But the corrected notice still failed because the building complied with the permitted development right. That distinction between a notice drafting defect and a substantive ground (c) success is the strongest point in this decision.
Original appeal decision
Inspector Jonathan Edwards allowed appeal 6011668 on 26th October 2026 after a site visit on 20th October. The notice was issued by North Northamptonshire Council on 26th May 2026 for land at 9 Orlando Road, Wellingborough. Read the official Planning Inspectorate appeal record. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The short quotation from the Inspector is reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
0 Comments