Station Road, Sidcup

How can we help?

Please fill in this form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Please enter your name
Please enter your email address
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter a question
Please let us know how you heard about us
Please enter the verification code

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy

Are You a Pandemic Home Worker? Do You Need Planning Permission?

Vast numbers of people have been prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic to take up working or running businesses from home – but do they need planning permission for a change of use? The High Court addressed that burning issue in the case of a personal trainer who fitted out part of a timber outbuilding in his garden as a gym for his clients.

The man argued that the business use of the outbuilding was ancillary to his use of a dwelling and that no planning permission was required. However, the local authority twice rejected his applications for a certificate of lawful use. Despite arming himself with an expert acoustics report and testimony from neighbours, his appeals against the refusals were rejected by planning inspectors.

The inspector who dismissed his most recent appeal noted that the training sessions appeared to be well controlled. She pointed out, however, that noise was not the only factor to be taken into account. The comings and goings of at least four or five clients a day down a narrow passageway could also be a disturbance to neighbours, particularly in a tight-knit residential area.

Paying visitors to the outbuilding would be clearly visible from the rear windows and gardens of neighbouring homes. As a matter of fact and degree, the inspector found that business use on such a scale was neither trivial nor incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling. It resulted in an overall change to the property's use and character for which planning permission was required.

Dismissing the man's challenge to that outcome, the Court rejected arguments that visual disturbance to neighbours was an immaterial factor that the inspector should not have taken into account. Arguments that she failed to give adequate and intelligible reasons for her decision also fell on fallow ground.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.