Stephen Grendon v First Secretary of State & Cotswold District Council [2006] EWHC 1711 (Admin)
Grendon is an important dwellinghouse case because the High Court confirmed that planning law looks at both the physical state of a building and its actual, intended or attempted use. Simply living in a structure does not automatically make it a dwellinghouse.
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
- [2006] EWHC 1711 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
- Judgment date
- 14th July 2006
- Judge
- Mr Justice McCombe
- Case number
- CO/1399/2006
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
What happened in Grendon?
Mr Grendon lived in a small one-room building at Hermit’s Corner, Brimpsfield Common in Gloucestershire. He said the building had been used as a single dwellinghouse for long enough to become lawful, and he sought a certificate of lawful use.
The building was very basic. It had a sleeping platform, sitting area, wood-burning stove and gas hob. Electricity was added later. There was no running water, bathroom or toilet, and the building had limited windows. Mr Grendon drew water from a spring and used the surrounding woodland for toilet purposes.
The Planning Inspector accepted that Mr Grendon had lived there permanently from 2002, but decided that the building itself did not have the physical attributes of a dwellinghouse. The lawful development certificate appeal was dismissed.
Living somewhere is not enough
Mr Grendon challenged the Inspector’s decision in the High Court. His case included the argument that because the building was his home, that should carry decisive weight.
Mr Justice McCombe rejected that approach. Planning law is concerned with land use, and the meaning of dwellinghouse has to be considered in that planning context. The court held that it was not enough simply to ask whether the claimant regarded the building as his home.
The judge confirmed that both the building’s physical state and its actual, intended or attempted use must be considered. The weight given to each depends on the facts of the case.
How Grendon uses Gravesham
The judgment relied heavily on Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and O’Brien. Gravesham described the distinctive characteristic of a dwellinghouse as its ability to provide the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence.
But Gravesham also warned that actual occupation is not decisive. A very basic office or shed does not necessarily become a dwellinghouse simply because someone puts furniture in it and lives there.
The same reasoning works in the other direction. Gravesham also makes clear that permanent or year-round occupation is not essential: a second home used only at weekends or for part of the year can still be a dwellinghouse if it has the necessary domestic character and facilities.
Grendon confirms that this is a fact-and-degree exercise rather than a label chosen by the occupier.
The physical condition of the building mattered
The Inspector had regarded the lack of running water and a toilet as serious shortcomings. He also relied on the small one-room layout and the limited windows. The High Court held that he was entitled to take those physical characteristics into account alongside the residential use.
The fact that the building provided the basic facilities needed for Mr Grendon’s chosen lifestyle did not mean the Inspector had to treat it as a dwellinghouse.
Uratemp did not change the planning test
Mr Grendon also relied on the House of Lords decision in Uratemp Ventures Ltd v Collins [2001] UKHL 43, a housing-law case about whether premises were a dwelling.
McCombe J held that Uratemp arose under different legislation serving a different purpose. It did not create a universal definition of dwellinghouse for every Act of Parliament, and it did not displace the planning-law approach in Gravesham and related cases.
Why Grendon still matters
Grendon is useful whenever somebody argues that a building must be a dwellinghouse simply because a person lives there. The answer is more nuanced: occupation matters, but so do the building’s physical characteristics and the facilities it provides.
A recent example is the Soda Ash dwellinghouse appeal, where the Inspector relied on Gravesham, Grendon and Moore and found that a building with many domestic facilities still failed the dwellinghouse test because the lack of windows, adequate daylight, natural ventilation and outlook was fundamental on the facts.
That is why the case remains relevant to lawful development certificate disputes and unusual residential arrangements. See also our guide to Use Class C3 dwellinghouses and our page on lawful development certificate appeals.
The case itself concerned the old four-year enforcement period for a change of use to a single dwellinghouse. That historical time limit should not be treated as the current rule. Our planning enforcement time limits page explains the present position.
Grendon Case Law Page Updated: 16th September 2026