Emin: incidental use and domestic outbuildings
Emin v Secretary of State for the Environment and Mid Sussex District Council (1989) 58 P&CR 416; [1989] JPL 909 is an important older authority on purposes incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse.
Source note: Planning Geek does not hold the original report. This explanation is based on identified later judicial treatment and an Inspector’s application of the principle. There is no judgment download for Emin.
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
- (1989) 58 P&CR 416; [1989] JPL 909
- Court
- High Court, Queen's Bench Division
- Judge
- Sir Graham Eyre QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Incidental means subordinate in land-use terms
In Uttlesford v Secretary of State and White [1991] 2 PLR 76, the court records Sir Graham Eyre QC’s explanation in Emin that an incidental purpose involves subordination in land-use terms to enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.
The relationship with the home is therefore central. An occupier’s description of an activity does not, by itself, answer the legal question. Read the related Wallington entry for the Court of Appeal’s treatment of a domestic hobby.
The proposed activity and the building’s scale
Paragraphs 16–19 of appeal decision APP/U2235/X/12/2177741 explain the Inspector’s application of Emin. The intended activity, its nature and scale, and its relationship with the particular dwellinghouse must be considered.
The building’s size compared with the house may be important, but is not conclusive by itself. The question is whether the building is genuinely and reasonably required for the incidental purpose, rather than merely desired by its owner.
That is the Inspector’s account of the case-law approach, not a replacement for the unavailable original report.
Keep the legal questions separate
Whether an activity changes the use of a planning unit is not identical to whether constructing a new building is permitted development. Burdle helps with the first question.
This entry does not reproduce a current GPDO class or certify a particular outbuilding. The applicable legislation and the evidence for the actual proposal still need to be examined.
Emin Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026