The appellant proposed to add a kitchen and a study. The inspector remarked that primary accommodation such as a kitchen is taken to be part of the normal facilities of a dwellinghouse. It cannot be considered incidental to the enjoyment of the main house and so is not permitted by class E, part 1, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995, she decided.
She referred to the ruling in Rambridge v Secretary of State for the Environment  that class E does not permit buildings designed from the outset as primary residential accommodation. However, she also noted the judgement in Peche D'Or Investments v Secretary of State for the Environment , which held that permission is not required for a later change where a building has genuinely been constructed for incidental purposes.
The council agreed that as an authorised curtilage structure, the outbuilding could now be altered internally to provide primary living accommodation such as a kitchen and bedrooms. Nonetheless, it argued that any extension could only be classed as permitted development if it entailed accommodation required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the original dwellinghouse.
The inspector was not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the additional accommodation would be incidental to the main living space, since a kitchen would be part of the day-to-day living facilities of a dwellinghouse. Neither was she convinced by his argument that the proposal could be regarded as an extension to the main house, since it was clearly a separate building.
DCS Number 100-064-457
Inspector Katie Peerless; Hearing