HOUSING provider Incommunities have appealed Bradford Council’s decision to refuse plans for a new housing development.

Incommunities had partnered with developer Solo Developments and Construction to build 41 homes on land off Arthur Street in Idle. But Bradford Council has twice refused the application over concerns about the narrow access road to the site leading to “serious highway implications,” and the loss of protected trees.

Now an appeal has been lodged against the council’s decision, and it will be up to a government inspector to decide if the houses go ahead.

If Incommunities/Solo win the appeal, the companies say they will be claiming costs from the Council.

The site has been used as a car repairs garage, and Incommunities had said: “It will will make a substantial and positive contribution to the character and environment at Idle and provides the opportunity to develop a high quality sustainable scheme which follows all the current principles of urban design.”

In the appeal the two companies point out that both applications had originally been recommended for approval by planning officers, but they were refused by council committees.

If the application had been approved, the development would have included 22 socially rented homes and 19 homes for sale on the open market.

The appeal says: “The Council does not have a five year supply of housing, and has not had a five year supply for many years. The houses proposed are required in the short term to alleviate housing needs both in the affordable social rented sector and open market housing.

“The appeal proposal is an urban site in close proximity to excellent public transport links, employment, leisure, shopping open space and parks.

“The development of the site would be sustainable development and would help to meet the area’s future housing need without imposing pressure on Green Belt land.

“The appeal site is both available now and within a suitable location for development. It is considered the site could be easily commenced with a one year period.”

The appeal says that while trees will be cut down as part of the development, 23 per cent of those facing the axe are in “poor condition” and the rest are classed as “low quality.”

In their appeal submission, the companies say the councillors who made the decision to refuse the scheme acted “unreasonably” and against case law when it comes to determining planning applications.

It adds: “We suggest that the assessment by the LPA (local planning authority) erred significantly and contrary to guidance. As such, the appellant seeks an award of costs.

“It appears the Council acted unreasonably in not reporting or assessing the case correctly and ignoring relevant facts. These factors led to the applicant submitting the appeal and incurring the cost of the appeal process.”

No timetable has set for the appeal decision yet.