- Decision
- dismissed, 23 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Laura Bartle
- Authority
- Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6006305
- Application reference
- 25/01229/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Industrial storage unit for existing joinery business on estate hardstanding
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR4(1)(e), TR6(4), S4
- Development plan policies
- Calderdale Local Plan BT4, IM5(III)
- Main issues
- parking provision and highway safety
Summary
Storage building for a joinery business on an industrial estate in Halifax, dismissed. It would take up the business's existing parking and yard, and the appellant could not show that the remaining parking, or land outside the red line, would meet the combined demand. This conflicted with TR4(1)(e) and brought in TR6(4).
What made the difference
The evidence was poor. The parking survey did not separate the site from neighbouring units, and there was no proof of control over the off-site manoeuvring areas (DL ¶¶7–9). Moderate economic benefit could not stand against "TR6(4) ... development should be refused if it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety", to which the inspector gave significant weight. The inspector's own finding was "detrimental" rather than expressly "unacceptable" (DL ¶¶13, 18–19). Good town-centre accessibility did not help an industrial use that needs delivery access (DL ¶10).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR4(1)(e) | fail | significant | parking for existing business plus new unit not shown; reliance on land outside red line of uncertain control (DL 6-13) |
| TR6(4) | fail | significant | overspill onto estate circulation areas harms highway safety and free flow (DL 12, 18) |
| S4 | fail | moderate economic benefits substantially outweighed; presumption "does not apply" (DL 16-19) |
Key facts
- Only two spaces left on site once the building is erected; survey of five vehicles did not distinguish the site from neighbouring units (DL 6-7)
- Environment Agency objection raised during the appeal was not resolved (DL 14-15)
- Decision reissued under s56(2) PCPA 2004, superseding the 8 Sep 2026 version
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.