A multi-million pound plan to build 362 apartments in Bradford city centre is in jeopardy after Council planning chiefs refused to renew planning permission for the scheme.

Members of Bradford Area Planning Panel yesterday voted against an application for the residential development on a vacant plot at Trafalgar Street and Snowden Street, near the junction of Manningham Lane and Hamm Strasse, after a row over the amount of cash the developer should pay towards affordable housing and educational and recreational facilities.

Sailbridge Developments’ scheme, which is split into three different buildings and includes a 15-storey oval tower, was first approved in 2008 subject to a section 106 legal agreement. The company had asked if it could reduce its contributions to the Council citing a fall in property prices and land valuation – but councillors followed a recommendation from planning officers to refuse the application.

Planning permission for the development, which would include 164 studios, 109 one-bed and 89 two-bed apartments as well as shops, cafes, offices and leisure units, is due to expire in August.

Speaking after the meeting, planning consultant Philip Coote, agent for the developer, said the authority was “living in cloud cuckoo land” if it expected it to pay the same amounts agreed four years ago.

Vowing to resubmit the plans, he said: “The land was worth £3m, it’s now worth about £1.8m. If the section 106 agreement isn’t changed there’s no way this scheme can go ahead.

“It was very much a scheme of its time, and would probably need to be revised to reflect the current market. This may mean there are fewer flats, but we will look at this once we get planning permission.”

The developer had asked if it could reduce its housing contribution by 25 per cent from £480,000 to £360,000, and its recreation open space and education contributions, previously agreed at £259,450 and £134,924 respectively, by 33 per cent each.

A report by planning officers to the committee said the proposal is “of a type and scale” that would normally require social contributions towards the provision of affordable housing, education provision and space for recreation.

The report added: “The developer has failed to give adequate or verifiable justification as to why they should not be made.”