A Class E outbuilding for a home office and gym in Teddington has won an appeal after Richmond Council’s argument that the applicant’s home was a flat failed.
An inspector decided that a home carved from a former detached house was a dwellinghouse in its own right, rather than a flat, so it could use Part 1 permitted development rights.
Inspector A U Ghafoor allowed the lawful development certificate appeal on 25th September 2026 for a proposed outbuilding at Braemar Cottages, Manor Road. The building would measure 5 metres by 4.6 metres and stand 2.5 metres high.
It has not been granted a fresh planning permission: the decision certifies that this specific proposal was lawful as proposed.
The case turned on one question. Did the way the old house had been divided leave its new homes as flats, with no householder Class E right, or create separate dwellinghouses?
The Class E outbuilding Richmond challenged
Richmond treated the applicant’s home as a flat. Under article 2 of the General Permitted Development Order, a flat is self-contained dwelling premises divided horizontally from another part of a building. A “dwellinghouse” for Part 1 rights does not include a flat or a building containing flats.
If the council was right about the classification, the proposed garden building could not rely on Part 1 Class E for outbuildings.
That was the whole fight. The parties agreed that a home office and gym would be incidental to the enjoyment of the home and did not dispute the building’s compliance with the physical Class E limits.
The Class E outbuilding would cover about 42 per cent of the relevant curtilage, excluding the original dwellinghouse, against the usual 50 per cent ceiling.
The refusal notice cited application 01/1563, a proposal to merge two units into one dwelling that Richmond refused on 20th November 2001. The council said it had found no later merger application and took the view that the property still comprised two units without dwellinghouse Part 1 rights. Inspector Ghafoor expressly referred to the 2001 merger application in paragraph 5 of his decision.
Richmond also cited an earlier appeal decision, dated 14th March 2023, which said the building was occupied as two dwellings. That case concerned alterations to “the two houses” and was dismissed over conservation-area harm. It did not decide whether those dwellings were flats for GPDO purposes.
Those records explain why Richmond said there were still two units. They do not, by themselves, establish that the units were flats. Inspector Ghafoor visited on 12th September 2026 and described a pair of semi-detached homes divided vertically. He assessed their present physical and functional separation as a matter of fact and degree. The decisions do not establish when that layout arose or determine the lawfulness of every intervening alteration.
Why the Inspector found a separate dwellinghouse
The former detached house had been permanently divided internally and externally into two self-contained homes. The division ran vertically, giving each its own entrance, rather than leaving one home as rooms within the other.
The inspector found that the applicant’s home had the full facilities needed for ordinary domestic life and could be occupied separately.
There was, he found, substantial physical and functional separation between the two properties. Each was a distinct planning unit.
In the locally hosted appeal decision (APP/L5810/X/25/3364925), Inspector Ghafoor called the applicant’s property “a self-contained dwellinghouse rather than a separate flat”.
That conclusion defeated Richmond’s sole objection.
On the evidence before him and applying the balance of probabilities, the inspector found that the council’s refusal was not well founded. He allowed the appeal and issued a certificate for the proposed outbuilding.
The inspector acknowledged that this was “likely to be disappointing for the Council”, but said he had to decide on the written submissions and the evidence before him.
What this appeal does, and does not, establish
This is a useful reminder that the label on an old application, postal arrangement or council record does not necessarily answer the Class E question.
The inspector described the status of this particular home as “a matter of fact and degree”.
Its separate entrance, domestic facilities, lasting division and independent use mattered together.
It does not follow that every house split into two automatically gives both parts householder permitted development rights. A different layout, shared facilities or a less complete separation could produce a different answer.
For a certificate application, practitioners should make the present arrangement legible with plans and photographs of separate access, domestic facilities, the permanent division and each home’s curtilage. A Class E outbuilding proposal also needs drawings and a clear account of its incidental use. That is a practical inference from the features this inspector examined, rather than a fixed checklist that determines every divided house.
The application was for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed development, assessed as at 23rd January 2025, and the certificate identifies the home office and gym, its land plan and four specified drawings. Materially different works or use would need their own assessment.
Government householder guidance distinguishes incidental outbuildings from separate self-contained accommodation and primary living rooms such as a bedroom, bathroom or kitchen. A garden annexe would raise a different Class E question.
For anyone planning a Class E outbuilding after a house has been divided, the first task is to establish what each unit actually is in planning terms.
Only then is it worth checking the outbuilding’s footprint, position, height and use against Class E.
If the council refuses a certificate on an arguable classification, the LDC appeal route can resolve that question on the evidence.
0 Comments