On the information before the inspector and from inspection of the property, she was not satisfied that the property comprised a dwellinghouse to which the permitted development rights in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO would apply.
In addition to providing a home for the appellant and his family, the property was in use as a childminding business, with nine children being cared for by three adults. The inspector considered this childminding business not an ordinarily incidental use of a dwellinghouse so as to be part of its primary use, nor so minimal that it had not resulted in any material change in the definable character of the use. In particular, she highlighted the activity generated by the childminding use such as the delivery and collection of children, the arrival of the carers, and the noise from the children themselves as being significantly different from the activity and noise that would be generated from the sole use of the premises as a dwellinghouse.
Inspector: Bridget Campbell; Written representations