DETAILED proposals for homes intended for a site near a bitterly disputed footpath are now being considered by Bradford Council planners.

The application is for 37 new homes at the former scrap yard at Castle Mills, off Becks Road, Keighley.

The site received outline permission for 66 homes in June 2015, and is near a public footpath which has been the subject of a lengthy dispute between rights of way campaigners and landowner Gary Bennett.

In July, Mr Bennett defended his decision to stop people accessing the path linking Rishworth Street at Fell Lane with the bottom of Oakworth Road.

He said he was being “persecuted” by people objecting to him blocking the path, adding that he faced difficulty getting insurance to cover public access during his project to build the 37 homes.

He has contested Bradford Council's enforcement action to re-open the path, saying the closure has cut drug and vehicle-related offences by stopping the criminals who were using this route.

But Keighley footpaths campaign group BANDAG said this route is a public right-of-way, and that no excuses for blocking it should be accepted.

The proposals now under consideration are for 21 four-bed mews houses and 16 one and two-bed apartments with car parking, access and landscaping.

The 1.6 hectare site would also accommodate 66 car parking spaces and about 50 new trees. Vehicle access would be from Raglan Street.

A design and access statement submitted as part of the application says reducing the scheme from 66 homes to 37 will mean more green space can be retained.

It adds: "The site is on the urban fringe but nonetheless in a sustainable location close to the town centre and transport routes and services.

"The site itself is a former scrap yard use and the site therefore constitutes previously developed land.

"While there is some ecological designation on the site, it is not within a conservation area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or other statutory restriction."

Councillor Cath Bacon (Lab, Keighley West), who has been supporting calls for the blocked footpath to be re-opened to pedestrians, said: "He [the developer] is blocking the footpath when it suits him.

"He has moved the containers obstructing the path for when he's been working on the site, but then put them back across the path again.

"If, as he says, he's doing this to stop anti-social behaviour, I hope he's going to point out the existence of this anti-social behaviour when he tries to sell the new houses.

"He needs to comply with the Council's rules and with the law like anyone else."

But Mr Bennett responded that he has seen an e-mail between two councillors which confirmed there was a "limited risk" to people using the footpath. He said even if this danger is "limited" there was still a risk to people's safety.

He again emphasised his insurers had told him he would not be covered if the path remains open while the housing development project is under way.

"As soon as the planning and the development is finished that footpath will be open again," he said. "It was never a case of shutting the path forever.

"And currently people only have to take a 76-yard detour, which is a minimal distance."