[2025] EWHC 1967 (Admin)

Turning to the final ground, the inspector dealt with the outbuilding in this way:

“58 The existing outbuilding, as shown, has a footprint of some 45.9m². The footprint of the original dwelling is some 41m² with the corresponding floor area of the original dwelling being some 82m². Put another way, the footprint of the outbuilding exceeds that of the original dwelling and is more than half of the total floor area of the original dwelling.

59.

It is settled case law that the size of the building is not, in itself, determinative of whether a development falls within the provision of Class E1. Nevertheless, the Courts have held that the size of the outbuilding is a material consideration and indeed that, when the matter is looked at as a whole, size may be an important consideration. In this case, it is not the size of the outbuilding in terms of square metres that important: it is relationship of that size that to the main dwelling. In that context, it is difficult to accept that the outbuilding can be regarded as being genuinely incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such.

60.

It is also settled case law that, in order to qualify as permitted development under Class E, an outbuilding must be required for some incidental purpose (emphasis added). It is therefore necessary to identify the purpose and incidental quality in relation to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, and whether the outbuilding is genuinely and reasonably required to accommodate the use and thus achieve that purpose.

61.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines ‘required’ as ‘needed for a purpose’. In relation to Class E, the Courts have interpreted ’required’ as meaning ‘reasonably required’. In the context of Class E, this translates as reasonably needed for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such.

62.

The proposed outbuilding, as shown in Drawing Nos S/467/01 and 02, is effectively divided into three spaces. One space is shown as a gym, with some storage. Another space is shown as an office. The third space has no particular use attached to it but is shown as accommodating some white goods.

63.

At the time of my site visit, there was some gym equipment in the space designated as a gym. The space/equipment did not give the impression of being well-used, but the equipment was nevertheless there. The space designated as an office is of a size that could reasonably be considered to be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, in the form of a study. The small size of the original dwelling is such that a study could not reasonably be accommodated within it.

64.

The difficulty is with the third space. The fact that the space is not specifically identified or designated for a specific purpose suggests that it is not actually required for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such. I accept that the installation of the white goods there would be useful given the small size of the original dwelling, as would the additional space for storage. Nevertheless, the entirety of the area of this third space cannot be considered as being as reasonably required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.

65.

For these reasons, I consider that the outbuilding proposed in Permutation 2 is not, when taken as a whole and as a matter of fact and degree, genuinely and reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such. It follows that the size of the outbuilding is larger than it needs to be in order to accommodate those purposes that are reasonably required (the gym and the office). As such, it would not constitute permitted development under Class E, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.

66.

I have no reason to doubt that the appellant has the funds and motivation to erect both the outbuilding and the single-storey extension, and in that sense rebuilding the outbuilding would be a realistic prospect. It is of course entirely possible that a smaller outbuilding could qualify as permitted development under Class E. However, a smaller outbuilding would be more desirable than the existing outbuilding, and therefore would not constitute a viable fallback position.”

Several important points are readily apparent from those passages. The first is that that inspector found that an outbuilding for a gym and office was reasonably required. He also found that the installation of white goods there would be useful as would additional storage space. Further he accepted the possibility that a smaller outbuilding could qualify as permitted development.

The Claimant submits that the inspector ignored an indication on the plan that the third space was intended to accommodate a standing boiler, which is currently housed in a small external shed which makes access for maintenance difficult. Mr Singhal submits that this omission was despite the fact that he showed the inspector this boiler on the site visit and he gave evidence about the need to relocate it in the third space. Whilst I accept that the reference to “white goods” is not usually apt to describe a boiler, in my judgment it is highly unlikely that the inspector ignored the boiler which was clearly marked on the plan which he expressly refers to and shown on the site view. The plan has no scale on it, but has measurements on it. As well as an annotation in capital letters showing the boiler in the third space, the boiler in its current position is marked with the annotation, again in capitals “Boiler will be moved to out building.” It is clear from the plan that even with the boiler, white goods and storage cupboard in the third space, there remains significant free space. Some idea of this is likely that have given on the site view, although the boiler and the white goods are not currently there, as shown on photographs of the third space in the hearing bundle before me.

In my judgment, the inspector was entitled to take into account that the third space was not identified on the plan for a specific purpose. He did not place a great deal of weight on this, merely saying that it “suggests” that it was not required for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. His reasoning however, was that the entirety of the third space cannot be considered as so required and that outbuilding, taken as a whole, and as a matter of fact and degree, cannot be considered as reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. He expressly had regard to authority to the effect that the size of the outbuilding is not of itself determinative of the issue. He therefore did not fall into the trap which the inspector fell into in Emin v Secretary of State for the Environment & Anor (1989) 58 P&CR 416, by regarding the relative size as the sole test of whether the use is incidental.

In my judgment, those were conclusions which the inspector was entitled to come to. This final ground fails.