Residential curtilage describes a legal and spatial relationship between land and a building. It is not itself a planning use of land, as a Holmfirth lawful development certificate appeal has usefully confirmed.
The distinction matters because residential garden use, use of land for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse and land falling within the curtilage of that dwelling can overlap without meaning exactly the same thing.
Appeal APP/Z4718/X/25/3373190 at Bar House, Penistone Road, Holmfirth was dismissed on 18th September 2026.
The certificate asked for the wrong thing
The application sought an existing-use lawful development certificate describing the land simply as “residential curtilage”.
The Inspector explained that curtilage defines an area of land associated with a building, not a use of land. A change to residential use also does not necessarily mean that land becomes part of a dwelling’s curtilage.
Had the appeal otherwise succeeded, the Inspector indicated that the description could have been recast to refer to use as residential garden or for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Those were the uses the evidence was actually directed towards.
Residential curtilage, garden and incidental use are different concepts
Curtilage is concerned with the relationship between land and a building. Garden use describes an actual use of land. Incidental residential use is another use question, and section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives particular treatment to land used within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse.
One area of land can satisfy more than one of those descriptions. That does not make the concepts legally interchangeable.
This is particularly important for permitted development. A piece of land can be used domestically without necessarily falling within the dwellinghouse curtilage for a particular GPDO right.
What the Holmfirth evidence showed
The appellant relied on statutory declarations and evidence of mowing, gardening, vegetables, flowers and long-term domestic activity. Historic mapping also suggested that some land behind and beside the house had a long relationship with it.
The Inspector accepted that the absence of formal lawns, paving or ornamental planting does not prevent land from being a garden. Equally, keeping rough land tidy or mowing it does not by itself establish residential garden use.
Most of the land appeared physically and functionally related to the cottage. The difficulty was an access track on the eastern side. Historic photographs and its physical character indicated a continuing agricultural access function, including gates and a route to the field beyond.
Why the ten-year evidence failed for the whole red line
For the certificate sought, the appellant needed to establish the relevant use for the required ten-year period on the balance of probabilities.
The Inspector considered that at least part of the land was likely to have been used for purposes incidental to the dwelling. The evidence did not, however, establish the claimed residential use across the whole red-line area with sufficient precision, particularly because of the track.
The fact that the dwelling had been unoccupied since 2014 did not itself establish abandonment of its residential use. The problem was proving the extent and continuity of the claimed land use.
Why the Inspector could not certify a smaller area
Section 193(4)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a lawful development certificate to be issued for all or part of the land, and for all or part of the matters described in an application.
That did not rescue this appeal. Although the Inspector thought some of the land was likely to qualify, the evidence did not allow him to identify a sufficiently precise smaller area and amend the plan with confidence.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
What residential curtilage means for owners and practitioners
Do not use “curtilage” as shorthand for “domestic use”. If the planning question is about an existing use, identify the use that is actually said to have taken place and map its extent accurately.
That distinction is especially important for gardens, agricultural edges, accesses, caravans and householder permitted development. Planning Geek’s curtilage guide explains the wider legal tests and why ownership boundaries, planning units and curtilage are not the same thing.
Appeal decision: APP/Z4718/X/25/3373190, Bar House, Holmfirth
0 Comments