Those of us who are parents know that it can be very hard not to just give in to pester power, and we are wondering if this might give us the background to (DCS Number 400-015-070).
In this case, an inspector upheld an enforcement notice directed at the keeping of horses in the back garden of an end terrace house in Essex.
There was no dispute between the parties that the two horses were pet animals for the enjoyment of the occupants of the dwellinghouse. The inspector pointed out, however, that it is established law that a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse should be interpreted as reasonably incidental and not on the unrestrained whim of the occupier. She observed that the surrounding area was residential and high density and that the rear garden was relatively small. The horses did not graze in the garden and were walked regularly through the garden to nearby land, she noted. The wooden building in which the horses were housed did not take up the majority of the garden but she found that it was nevertheless a significant building in its residential context and highly prominent from and in close proximity to its residential neighbours. She had no reason to doubt the neighbour who described the occasional negative impact of the close proximity of the horses on her living conditions by reason of odour.
The inspector concluded as a matter of fact and degree that the keeping of horses was not for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Consequently, the stable building did not benefit from permitted development rights and required planning permission.
Remember this tale when your little angel is pleading for a pony of their own.
The following DCP chapter is relevant: 12.8