# Windmill Court Country House, Keighley Road, Illingworth

- **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
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, burden-of-proof-original-building, vsc-shown, business-need, openness-harm-very-limited, no-consultation-new-framework, appeal-planning-officer

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010078
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fcec61c3-11c8-4979-aee0-83b0fb10fee1

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010078.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.