The basic concept of curtilage must exist everywhere, otherwise somebody who owns a house could just buy 20 acres of land next to it and develop that into “whatever”.
It’s perhaps worth pointing out that in Scotland and England, breach of planning regulations is not an offence. Also that if nobody objects to an unauthorised development for 4 or 10 years (depending on the nature of the development) the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must grant a “certificate of lawful use” if asked to do so.
As for use in excess of the 28 day rule, it is far from clear that private use of part of a grass field as a runway or use of part of a general purpose agricultural building to shelter an aircraft constitutes a “development” requiring planning consent. What might well require consent is any associated engineering works – for instance to create a hard runway. We had precisely this discussion with our local planning officer and he opined that, even in the latter case, it “would not be expedient in the public interest” for the LPA to pursue the matter. Indeed, the LPA readily agreed to “safeguard” the aerodrome, so that we are formally consulted regarding any nearby development which might affect use of the aerodrome.
Of course, each individual case will depend upon its facts.
Jacko wrote:
It’s perhaps worth pointing out that in Scotland and England, breach of planning regulations is not an offence. Also that if nobody objects to an unauthorised development for 4 or 10 years (depending on the nature of the development) the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must grant a “certificate of lawful use” if asked to do so.
Very interesting. In Germany it’s the other way around: Violating planning regulations, or even failing to gain approval for modifications on your property which would have required official approval, will – if discovered – not only result in a fine but also in you being forced to reverse whatever illegal modifications to your property one undertook. Even after many years.
A colleague once told me of a property he bought, which he wanted to modify. During the planning applications, it was discovered that the property had been illegally modified by the previous owner, some 20 years earlier. The colleague and new owner was not only refused permission to go ahead with his plans, but had to reverse the previous owner’s illegal modifications. This severely lowered the value of the whole property.
That is staggering!
I wonder which other countries do / don’t have the principle that after x years you are protected from an attack by the local govt?
That is pretty central to setting up a private strip, in Europe. Look at the UK… practically all of them started on the 28 day rule and most continued because they were too afraid of drawing attention to it. A few got the statement of lawful use. I read somewhere that the last place which went for a full planning permission from the outset (which would have been my plan, but would need a budget of ~100k) was Popham, in 1978.
That’s an interesting example of the traditional and cultural differences in our two countries. Perhaps it’s indicative of a fundamental incompatibility between the UK and our Continental friends and former partners.
On the face of it, the UK system is endearingly absurd, but on the other hand it achieves the crucial objective of limiting the power of the state – permitting unobjectionable development regardless of any (mercifully rare) personal or political prejudice of officials.
A requirement for the certificate of lawful use is that the development must be in plain sight. Courts have ruled that hiding an unauthorised dwelling in a forest or behind a haystack is “not cricket”.
I’m not sure to what extent it is possible to conceal a private aerodrome but in our case, we requested that our airfield be marked on the official and various commercial VFR charts/guides, so it has been there for all to see for a decade – if they could be bothered to look.
Jacko wrote:
That’s an interesting example of the traditional and cultural differences in our two countries. Perhaps it’s indicative of a fundamental incompatibility between the UK and our Continental friends and former partners
Absolutely agree that there are staggering cultural differences. In Germany in particular, people get very unhappy in the absence of rules, and the first instinct of many people if they encounter a problem in their daily lifes is to call for the state to sort it out, usually by introducing more rules and regulations.
There is no concept of “if it isn’t explicitly forbidden, it is allowed”. No, it’s much more straightforward: If it is allowed, it is allowed, if it isn’t allowed, it isn’t allowed…and anything not covered by either case will be eventually 
carlmeek wrote:
I’ve never heard of a curtilage so large you can squeeze in a runway, but you certainly can squeeze in a helipad!
But what about a garden? I’ve known rich people with lawns long enough to get an Auster in and out of quite easily. I’d have to imagine their lawn doesn’t become officially an “aerodrome” or “runway” the moment a plane touches it, any more than it becomes a road if you drive a car onto it.
Certainly here, when one farmer who ran into a problem with the courts over planning for his airfield simply narrowed the runways so they counted as farm tracks and grew crops in the field, and simply continued to operate, much to the chagrin of the planning authorities who could do nothing about it. (To be honest, he wouldn’t have had a problem at all had he not started operating a Cessna 337, and if you’ve heard one, you know the racket they make).
You can absolutely create a huge garden, by buying some acres next to your house (generally, from a farmer, who will charge 10x to 100x the normal farmland value ).
You can turn it into an orchard, put horses in there, etc. I know someone who turned their 3 acres into a bike jump course, which is probably marginal if you get visitors to use it.
But it won’t expand the curtilage of the property, for the purpose of permitted development rights etc. And a runway is under the heading of “change of use” which normally needs 10 years to legitimise. And of course you will want to build a hangar there also, which normally needs 4 years to legitimise. I guess a lot of people have put the hangar within their curtilage, while the runway can be outside.
It is a complex field and specialist advice is needed if there is any risk of complaints.
The curtilage argument is one that could be made, but it’s not very well defined. I think it certainly could be the case for use if you had a sufficiently large house for it to be considered garden / parkland for the enjoyment of the house. In the early days of aviation aircraft owners would often land on the drives of country houses. (although planning was not even a consideration then)
I think the better route for most is to operate unobtrusively from a field and see if there are any issues, if they are raised then you may have to pick your 28 days carefully.
One thought I’ve had which I’ve never got a clear answer is that planning permission is only required for change of use. If you operate from a field (say occupied by sheep) and you do not need to mow a runway Then you are not changing use or impacting the agricultural operation of the field. In which case I don’t see why you’d need any permission.
Yes; this is why a farmer with an RV keeps a tractor in the hangar barn 
In practice, normal private use means it is unlikely one will be operating more than once or twice a week, which nobody will notice unless they are out to get you.
FWIW, I am informed that France is similar to Germany in the respect of this discussion.
Spain is something else; I knew someone who got a full permission to build a tarmac runway but then he died. From a similar thread: here.
