A KELTY couple will not be able to site a mobile home in their "rear garden" after their appeal to Holyrood was dismissed.

Mr and Mrs Allan, of Cantsdam Road, brought the case to the Scottish Government reporter after Fife Council refused a Certificate of Lawfulness.

A supporting statement from Grant Allan Architecture on behalf of the applicants said the accommodation would be used by the pensioners, who are full-time child minders for their grandchildren who live in the main house.

It added that the mobile home "should be considered ancillary and treated as an extension to the main dwelling house" while using the same water and electricity source.

In his report of handling, Fife Council case officer Brian Forsyth said that, taking into account the history of physical separation between the main house and the "rear garden", the area "will have been rendered unusable due to invasive species over many years".

He also said that a pre-application enquiry had excluded the area and it was therefore "considered that the area is not part of the same curtilage, rather a separate planning unit, any current use of the area as if it were part of the same curtilage being unauthorised and unlawful."

He added: "Use of the accommodation would also not be ancillary because it would not be dependent on the existing dwellinghouse."

Mr Forsyth refused the Certificate of Lawfulness request and concluded: "The proposal for mobile residential accommodation involves building operations and a material change of use in land rather than being ancillary, such that development is involved.

"As the proposed use of the accommodation includes for purposes that would not be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, there is no scope for the development to be considered permitted development.

"As such, planning permission is required."

Scottish Government reporter Stuart West dismissed the appeal.

He said the local authority had submitted a series of screen capture images taken between 2009 and 2021 which showed the "rear garden" to be overgrown and separated from the property, Millbank, by a fence.

He added that the appellant claimed that between 2003 and 2021, the house was leased to tenants and the garden ground was allowed to become overgrown.

Mr West said: "I consider that at no point in the series of images is there any indication that the land now described by the appellant as the ‘rear garden’ was utilised as, or formed part of, the curtilage of Millbank.

"Rather, I find that the land appears to be entirely unrelated to Millbank in terms of its use and appearance throughout the period."

He concluded: "On the balance of probability taking into account all of the evidence before me, the use as garden ground commenced less than 10 years before the date of the application for the certificate.

"Because the land in question does not legitimately form part of the curtilage of Millbank, the proposal cannot be ancillary to the principle residential use of the property."