A GOVERNMENT inspector has backed a decision to block the building of over 40 homes on the site of an Idle scrap yard.

And the appeal decision may have spared the taxpayer thousands of pounds.

Bradford Council has twice refused an application by social housing provider Incommunities and Solo Developments to build a 41 home cul-de-sac on land off Arthur Street.

But last year the two companies lodged an appeal against the refusal, calling for a government appointed planning inspector to overturn the Council’s decision.

And they also submitted a request for the Council to pay the costs of the appeal if the decision went their way. That would likely have run into thousands of pounds.

The site has previously been used as a car repairs garage and scrap yard, and if redeveloped it would have included 22 socially rented homes and 19 homes for sale on the open market.

Incommunities had previously said of the development: “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.

“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.”

Bradford Council had refused the application over a loss of tress and “serious highway implications.”

Access to the site would be through a narrow road, and the plan was that some of this would be a “shared surface” - used by pedestrians and cars. Highways officers did not support this plan.

After looking at the appeal, government inspector Mike Worden backed the Council’s decision, and also raised concerns about the access point.

He said although the development would provide much needed affordable housing, this benefit did not outweigh the problems with the scheme.

His decision said: “The proposed development would be for family and affordable housing and the appeal site is in an accessible location where walking to shops, schools, and other facilities would be encouraged and necessary.

“However, in my view the proposed shared surface at this location, and at the width proposed, would unduly entrust the safety of pedestrian, including children, to the behaviour of drivers.

“I consider that the loss of the protected trees without appropriate mitigation on the site would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.”

“I have found that the proposal would cause harm to highway safety, and would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area as a result of the loss of all of the trees on the appeal site currently covered by the tree preservation order, with no replacement woodland planting proposed.

“The proposed development would provide 22 affordable homes, and provide a beneficial re-use of a brownfield site, to which both I attach significant weight.

“The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land but I consider that the adverse effects of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”

An Incommunities spokesperson said: “Whilst we are disappointed by the outcome in this case, we remain committed to continuing to invest in delivering a range of much needed affordable homes for local people.”