Methuen-Campbell v Walters [1979] QB 525
Methuen-Campbell is one of the core authorities on the meaning of curtilage. Although the case arose under leasehold enfranchisement legislation rather than planning law, the Court of Appeal’s formulation has repeatedly been adopted in planning cases. The practical question is whether the land is so intimately associated with the building that it truly forms part and parcel of it.
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
- [1979] QB 525; [1979] 2 WLR 113; [1979] 1 All ER 606
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 21st June 1978
- Judge
- Lord Justice Buckley, Lord Justice Roskill and Lord Justice Goff
What Methuen-Campbell decided
The property known as The Gables in Gower comprised a house, a cultivated garden and a 1.6-acre paddock of rough pasture beyond the garden.
The house, garden and paddock had been included within the same lease. The tenant sought to acquire the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and argued that the paddock should pass with the house as an appurtenance.
The Court of Appeal held that it should not. The paddock was outside the curtilage of the house.
The part-and-parcel test
Lord Justice Buckley gave the formulation that has become particularly important in later planning cases.
For one parcel of land to fall within the curtilage of another property, the relationship must be sufficiently close that the first parcel can properly be regarded as part and parcel of the second.
The concept can include the ordinary domestic surroundings of a house, such as a yard, passage, garage, driveway, garden or ancillary outbuilding. How far it extends depends on the character and circumstances of the property.
Common ownership is not enough
The fact that two pieces of land have been conveyed, leased or owned together does not make them one curtilage.
A single title can contain several separate parcels. Planning curtilage therefore cannot be established simply by pointing to the Land Registry title or the red line around an application site.
Joint occupation is not enough either
The paddock had been occupied and enjoyed with The Gables. It had been used by the family for recreation and also for grazing.
The Court of Appeal held that occupation together did not answer the curtilage question. Land may be useful, convenient or valuable to the occupier of a house without becoming part and parcel of that house.
A useful amenity can still be outside the curtilage
The tenant’s evidence was that the paddock was a valuable amenity and that any purchaser of this sort of house would expect some land with it.
That did not make the paddock curtilage. Convenience and amenity are different from the intimate physical relationship required by the part-and-parcel test.
The fence and physical layout mattered
The cultivated garden had always been separated from the paddock by fencing. There had once been a gate, but the physical distinction between domestic garden and rough pasture was clear.
The court considered that separation important. The garden served the intimate domestic purposes of the house. The paddock remained a distinct piece of property, albeit one which added amenity and value.
The case was not decided under planning legislation
Methuen-Campbell arose under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which gave tenants a compulsory right to acquire property. That statutory context influenced parts of the reasoning.
The curtilage formulation has nevertheless been repeatedly used in planning cases. In particular, the Court of Appeal in Blackbushe Airport treated the part-and-parcel test as the correct underlying test when considering curtilage in a planning context.
How Methuen-Campbell fits with the later authorities
Dyer v Dorset reinforced the restricted character of curtilage. The later Court of Appeal judgment in Skerritts cautioned against turning the idea of smallness into a rigid legal rule, especially for substantial listed buildings.
The safest approach today is to use the part-and-parcel question together with the physical layout, historic ownership and functional relationship identified in the wider authorities.
About the Planning Geek copy of Methuen-Campbell
Planning Geek holds a locally hosted copy of the judgment.
Gold Members can download the judgment below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
See our practical guide to curtilage.
Methuen-Campbell Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026