THE OWNERS of a hotel and restaurant in Brighouse are to seek a judicial review over a failed planning appeal which has left them having to demolish a large extension built without planning permission.

The company which runs the Casa Hotel and Restaurant was told two weeks ago that its appeal against the refusal of planning consent had failed and that it had nine months to remove the three-storey addition to the building in Elland Road.

It followed a planning inquiry which was held earlier this summer over a Calderdale Council enforcement notice calling for the removal of the building and the subsequent refusal of revised plans.

Now manager Sam Holmes has confirmed that Castelite Ltd is to seek a judicial review through the High Court.

He told the Telegraph & Argus: "We have put the Council on notice that we intend to take the matter to judicial review on the basis that we believe the decision to be unlawful."

A successful challenge to the appeal decision through the High Courts would result in the matter needing to be re-determined by the Planning Inspector.

But Calderdale Council’s development manager, Richard Seaman, said yesterday: “The Council has not yet received notification of any legal challenge.

"The nine month period for compliance with the enforcement notice will remain in place unless the enforcement appeal decision is overturned by the court.”

Earlier this month Planning Inspector Ahsan Ghafoor took the decision to dismiss both appeals and ruled that the function room extension must be torn down.

He found that not only was the “unlawful” extension against green belt rules, the only solution was to restore the land to its original condition.

The owners had argued that work on the larger extension, which would create around 38 full-time and 50 part-time jobs, began before permission for a smaller extension expired.

But Mr Ghafoor disagreed, saying that taken together the external and internal differences result in a “substantially different development when compared to the scheme approved in 2009” and therefore the express planning permission required had not been obtained.

He did however agree that there would be some economic and social benefit from a specially-designed functions suite and office space, but that it would not be “at the expense of the environment”.

Considering whether the building could be revised instead of the extension needing to be demolished, he added: “The appellant considers total demolition is over-enforcement.

“The steps required to comply with the notice seek to remedy the breach by restoring the land to its condition before the breach occurred.

“There is no lawful fall-back position to which the appellant could revert, because the 2009 permission has expired.

“Therefore, nothing short of total demolition would achieve the notice’s purpose and I find that the steps required in the notice are not excessive.”

The inspector did, however, extend the period in which the extension must be demolished from the two months in the original Council enforcement notice, to nine months.