R (Egerton) v Taunton Deane Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2752 (Admin)
Egerton listed building curtilage is a useful High Court authority on deciding whether a separate building falls within the curtilage of a listed building.
The case confirms that common ownership is only part of the picture. The physical relationship between the buildings and the way they have historically been used can be decisive when identifying the extent of a listed building’s curtilage.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2008] EWHC 2752 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
- Judgment date
- 23rd October 2008
- Judge
- Mr Justice Sullivan
- Case number
- CO/3508/2007
What Egerton decided
The dispute concerned Mill Barn at Jews Farm, Wiveliscombe. Taunton Deane Borough Council had granted planning permission for an extension to the barn. The claimant argued that Mill Barn was within the curtilage of the listed Jews Farmhouse and that the council had therefore failed properly to deal with the listed-building implications.
The farmhouse had been listed in 1984. The key question was whether Mill Barn formed part of its curtilage at the relevant date.
Mr Justice Sullivan rejected the challenge. The council had been entitled to conclude that the barn was outside the curtilage of the listed farmhouse.
Curtilage is a question of fact and degree
Egerton applied the familiar approach to curtilage by looking at three broad groups of factors: the physical layout of the buildings and land, their past and present ownership, and their past and present use or function.
No single factor is automatically conclusive. The exercise is fact-sensitive and the factors have to be considered together.
This matters because two buildings can be in the same ownership without one necessarily being within the curtilage of the other.
Common ownership was not enough
There was common ownership between the farmhouse and Mill Barn. That supported the claimant’s argument, but it did not answer the curtilage question.
The judge considered the physical and functional relationship more important on the facts. Mill Barn was separated from the farmhouse’s domestic area and had an agricultural or business function rather than serving the farmhouse as part of its domestic establishment.
The case is therefore a useful warning against treating a title boundary, farm holding or common ownership as if it automatically defined listed-building curtilage.
Physical separation can be important
The relationship on the ground was significant. The farmhouse had a recognisable domestic boundary and the barn sat apart from it, with intervening farm buildings and space between them.
That physical separation supported the council’s conclusion that Mill Barn did not form part of the small area of land intimately associated with the listed farmhouse.
For practical guidance on this issue, see Planning Geek’s guide to planning curtilage.
Historic function matters as well as present appearance
Curtilage is not determined simply by asking whether two buildings look connected today. Their historical relationship and function can matter, particularly where the question concerns curtilage-listed structures.
In Egerton, Mill Barn’s agricultural and commercial function counted against it being ancillary to the domestic use of the farmhouse.
The judgment is therefore particularly useful on farms, estates and other sites where several buildings have long been held together but have served quite different purposes.
Why Egerton still matters
Whether a structure is within the curtilage of a listed building can determine whether works to it engage listed building control. The answer should be established before assuming that a separate outbuilding or former agricultural building is, or is not, protected through curtilage listing.
Our guide to listed buildings and listed building consent explains the wider regime.
Read the full Egerton judgment
The full High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Egerton Listed Building Curtilage Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026