COUNCILLORS have refused plans to build houses in a Frizinghall garden - despite advice that the development should go ahead.

The development of four homes to the rear of 19 and 21 Ashfield Avenue had been submitted by Richard Dawson, and was refused by the Bradford Area Planning Panel yesterday.

The development would include a vehicle access point created between the two homes.

Although the scheme had attracted 23 objections, Bradford Council officers said there was no reason for the plans to be refused in a report given to the panel.

A number of objectors to the plans were present at the meeting, and told Councillors that the development would cause noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties, create traffic problems on Ashfield Avenue, and lead to a rise in air pollution in the area.

A similar application had been rejected in the past, but officers said the new application had addressed most of the reasons for refusal.

Government overturns Bradford Council's decision to block fish and chip shop in Wibsey

Mr Dawson defended the plans at the meeting, saying he had struggled to maintain the large garden site, and that he had worked to address all the planning matters.

Councillor Mohammed Amran (Lab, Heaton) asked: "If you were living in this area would you have allowed this type of development to go ahead?"

This led to laughter from objectors.

Mr Dawson replied: "Yes. I submitted the first application for this site when I was living there."

Cllr Amran replied: "This space is used by the local community. I know it is privately owned, but you wouldn't want houses here when people have spent so much money on their houses here. I'm not satisfied with this proposal."

He was reminded that it was a back garden, rather than a public green space.

Officers reminded members that if they didn't provide a reason for refusal that was acceptable in planning law, a refusal would be "un-defendable" if the plans went to an appeal, and the taxpayer may have to foot the bill of that appeal.

Chair Alan Wainwright (Lab, Tong) said: "What we have to understand is that if we go against the officer's recommendation it may well be that this goes to an appeal. We have to be confident we can give the officers a strong reason for refusal that they can fight at appeal, as it will be a government officer with no knowledge of the area making the final decision."

The committee debated the application for an hour and a half, and after members suggested the plans be refused it took them almost 20 minutes to come up with a reason that would stand up to scrutiny if the development went to an appeal.

Eventually they decided the four homes would cause noise and disturbance to a "relatively tranquil" environment.