A TV star couple have been told they may have to remove a garden shed that was installed after failing to gain planning permission.
Former Made in Chelsea and BBC Watchdog presenter Spencer Matthews and his Dancing With the Stars wife Vogue Williams recently installed a shed on their £7million Jersey property believing the shed qualified for "domestic curtilage" and so did not requireplanning permission.
However, they now may be forced to remove the shed after being told it did not qualify for permitted development rights after residents complained about the structure.
Believed shed qualified under 'domestic curtilage'
Matthews purchased the £7million Jersey estate alongside his wife Vogue Williams in December 2021 and recently built a shed without planning permission.
18英尺的裁员措施15英尺nd was intended to be used for storage. The shed has been equipped with electricity and water connections, which are linked to the main house and was built in an area immediately beside an agricultural building.
Matthews mistakenly assumed that obtaining consent for the shed was unnecessary, as he believed it still fell within the bounds of the "domestic curtilage".
If it was deemed to be within these bounds then the shed would have been classified under permitted development rights and would not have required planning permission.
However, to qualify the shed must have been either clearly attached to the house or serving the purpose of the house in some way under the permitted development rules for sheds in Jersey.
What is the law on 'domestic curtilage'?
The Jersey government website states that "'domestic curtilage’ is the area of land on which a dwelling house / flat sits and includes the residential land immediately around the building, which serves the building in some defined and meaningful way. It doesn’t include a field or other open land next to a house, even if it’s in the same ownership."
UK law has a similar definition of "curtilage”. It is defined as "land which forms part and parcel with the house. Usually it is the area of land within which the house sits, or to which it is attached, such as the garden, but for some houses, especially in the case of properties with large grounds, it may be a smaller area."
Forced to seek retrospective planning permission
Authorities in Jersey determined that the tool shed needed planning permission despite being built within Matthews and Williams' 16-acre estate.
This has meant the pair must now submit a retrospective planning application for the structure, if they wish to keep it.
In a formal letter addressed to the council, their planning agent, Michael Stein from MS Planning, said: "This application is for a small agricultural tool shed which has already been erected and is needed to store equipment that is used to maintain circa 40 vergees of land that the applicant owns.
"The field margins require a certain amount of management by the owner to keep it in good condition, and which helps to maintain the landscape character of this part of the countryside for the benefit of the immediate neighbours and the wider public."
The letter claims that most of the 13 fields on the estate are used for growing hay and sileage for the use of a local equestrian business.
The letter added: "The amount of maintenance involved presently requires only this small shed which was erected in this location because there are no other buildings that have the capacity for storing the agricultural tools and equipment needed.
“塞北部靠近边界的事业中d and built with appropriate materials and colours that fit this countryside context, the proposal will sit comfortably and will not be readily visible from any public vantage points."
Neighbour voices her objection to TV stars' shed
This did not appease local residents who complained and urged the Government of Jersey to reject the retrospective planning permission.
Lyn Plaster, who lives nearby, said the shed should not be granted permission as it falls within a designated Protected Coastal and保护区.
Plaster's complaint also accuses Stein of providing false information, claiming that he was incorrect in stating that the shed is not "clearly visible" to neighbours when in fact, she believes, the shed can be seen from neighbouring National Trust land.
In addition, Plaster argued that the shed would have required planning permission, even if it had been constructed within the boundaries of the "domestic curtilage" of the house. According to her, the shed exceeded the permissible size limits, as it covered an area exceeding 41 square meters when considering its overhanging roof.
Plaster wrote in a letter to the planning office: "We understand that storage may be required by the applicant, however, this should be located within the domestic curtilage or an appropriate place within the agricultural land subject, of course, to appropriate planning permissions.
"We would therefore request that the permission be refused, and the applicant be required to restore the field to its former condition."
Matthews will now wait to see if hisplanning permission is refusedafter the Government of Jersey, which is the planning authority for the island, inspected the shed on May 4. If it fails to receive retrospective planning permission it is likely to be subject to enforcement action to remove the structure.
