- Decision
- allowed, 1 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer S Manson)
- Authority
- Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6010078
- Application reference
- 25/01274/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Single-storey extension to catering kitchen of hotel / holiday-let premises (former pub)
- Site context
- green belt, valued landscape
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Calderdale Local Plan 2023 GB1
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; VSC balance
Summary
A small kitchen extension to a Green Belt hotel. Found inappropriate only because nobody had quantified past additions to the original building, so the inspector could not rule out a disproportionate increase. VSC was nonetheless shown: very limited openness harm against a compelling business need. Allowed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The 2026 changes were "minor relevant alterations to Green Belt matters … they do not have a material bearing"; the decision proceeded without consultation (DL ¶3).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL on evidence. "Neither party have provided a detailed assessment of additions to the original building … I cannot be sufficiently certain that a disproportionate increase has not occurred" (DL ¶8). The test concerns "the extension of a building, not buildings with which it is associated or within its curtilage" (DL ¶6).
- Openness: very limited harm (DL ¶10).
- Need: compelling. "The existing kitchen is indeed very small for the size of the related commercial operations" (DL ¶11).
Planning balance
GB6(2). "it is purely ambiguity that has led to the conclusion on inappropriate development. I therefore attach greater than substantial weight to the other considerations, such that the very special circumstances … have been demonstrated" (DL ¶14).
What made the difference
The harm was tiny and the business need genuine. The inspector openly weighted the VSC balance by noting the inappropriateness finding rested only on missing evidence.
Transferable points
- The burden is on the parties to show original-building versus cumulative additions. Without it, GB7(1)(b) can fail even for a small extension (DL ¶8–9).
- GB7(1)(b) looks at the building being extended, not detached structures in the curtilage (DL ¶6).
- Where inappropriateness rests on evidential ambiguity and the openness harm is very limited, a genuine business need can amount to VSC (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | no floorspace or volume analysis of cumulative additions since the original building, so cannot be satisfied the increase is not disproportionate (DL 8-9) | |
| GB6(2) | pass | substantial | very limited openness harm; clear business need given "greater than substantial weight"; VSC shown (DL 10-11, 14) |
| E4 | benefit | thriving rural business, kitchen undersized for operations (DL 11) |
Key facts
- Large former pub now a hotel and holiday-let business; kitchen extension 2004, function room enlargements 2016
- Neither party quantified additions to the original building
- Extension "contextually very small", largely within the building envelope, on an inconspicuous elevation
- 2026 Framework applied without consultation because the changes were not material to the issue (DL 3)
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.