- Decision
- dismissed, 15 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer S Manson)
- Authority
- Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6010024
- Application reference
- 2026/62/90709/E
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retrospective change of use of part of a residential kitchen for small-scale home cooking for takeaway and delivery
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HC5(1)(a), S4
- Development plan policies
- Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP13, LP16, LP24, LP47, LP52, Hot Food Takeaway SPD 2022
- Main issues
- location of hot food takeaway near school; living conditions
Summary
A retrospective home-kitchen takeaway business in a Batley terrace near a primary school. The appeal was dismissed. It fell squarely within HC5(1)(a): within 400 m of a school and outside a designated centre. It also failed on amenity for lack of extraction and waste details, and the S4 balance went against it.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "There have been some layout and subsequent paragraph numbering changes. I am however satisfied that … they do not have a material bearing" (DL ¶3).
- Scale is irrelevant to the use. "the use applied for and undertaken is that of a HFT, which is classed as a main town centre use. Neither the development plan nor the Town and Country (Use Classes) Order … distinguishes such uses by reference to the scale of operation" (DL ¶6).
- HC5(1)(a): FAIL. "Policy HC5 of the Framework clearly states … that proposals for a HFT should be refused if it is to be located within a reasonable walking distance of a school, which it quantifies as 400 metres … It is not disputed that the appeal site falls within this distance" (DL ¶7). "the potential influence of a HFT in close proximity to a school is not confined to the traditional start and end of the school day" (DL ¶8).
- S4. "the harm I have found, and the subsequent development plan conflict, would be obvious and enduring and I therefore ascribe it significant weight. The benefits … would therefore be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶14).
Planning balance
S4. Benefits: small economic contribution. Harms: HC5 location conflict and amenity harm, significant weight. Substantially outweighed.
What made the difference
The 400 m distance to a primary school outside any designated centre. HC5(1)(a) is phrased as "should be refused", so there was little room for argument. Contrast Luton (PINS-6009647), where the town-centre exception applied.
Transferable points
- HC5(1)(a) applies to a home-kitchen takeaway of any scale within about 400 m of a school, outside a designated centre (DL ¶6-7).
- The school-proximity concern is not limited to school opening and closing times (DL ¶8).
- A "should be refused" failure under HC5 plus amenity harm gives an S4 "substantially outweighed" result (DL ¶14).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HC5(1)(a) | fail | within 400 m of a primary school (undisputed); not in a designated centre; risk extends beyond school start and finish times (after-school clubs, pupils who walk alone); signage adds prominence (DL 7-9) | |
| TC3 | fail | a takeaway is a main town centre use whatever its scale; no sequential test (local LP13/LP16) (DL 6) | |
| P3 | harm | significant | no extraction, odour control, acoustic or waste details in a dense terrace; conflict with local amenity policies (DL 10-13) |
| S4 | fail | "obvious and enduring" harm, significant weight; small economic benefits substantially outweighed (DL 14) |
Key facts
- Mid-terrace house on a residential street; Warwick Road Junior, Infant and Nursery School a short walk away
- Appellant said it was small-scale home cooking; neither the plan nor the Use Classes Order distinguishes takeaways by scale
- No extraction or waste storage details
- Site visit by an appeal planning officer, decision by the inspector on that recommendation
- Parties not re-consulted
Related decisions
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.