11 Chapel View: Office/Gym in Back Garden of 70% size of the original house is not “incidental”

We are pleased that the Planning Department has rejected this application. The reason was;

“no justification has been provided to demonstrate that the size and use of these rooms are genuinely or reasonably required for the purposes stated”

We were worried that as office/gyms are “permitted development” (provided they are  single story, take up less than 50% of the available garden space etc etc) and this the application met the specific size/height rules the Planning Department would approve.  However the Planning Department decided that the more general rule of being “incidental” to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house was not met because of the size and scale.

Prior to the decision we looked around for relevant case law to put in our response to the application we found some but knew there must be more out there.  We needn’t have worried. The Planning Department department quoted Emin v SSE Mid Sussex DC 1989 which states that “incidental” is based on reasonableness and reasonableness is determined by the circumstances of each case.

In this case a proposed gym/office of around 70% of the size of the original dewllinghouse was not reasonable.

Well done the Planning Department  .