PROPOSALS to re-develop a the site of a former care home have been refused - with concerns raised over it’s impact on a neighbouring park.

The application would have seen 13 homes built next to Peel Park, on land that was, until last year, occupied by the Mount care home building.

However, the plans were refused for a number of reasons - including the impact of the homes on the Grade II* listed park.

Submitted by Keith Christensen, the application was for a mix of two and three bed homes on a site that was cleared when the Victorian former care home was demolished last year.

Referring to its proximity to the park, the application said: "It seeks to not only fit in with its context, but to enhance it."

However, the location next to the listed park raised alarm bells for some.

The Yorkshire Gardens Trust had questioned the plan, saying the designing of the homes in the application, which included white render, was a poor substitute for the grand building that was demolished.

Protected trees sink appeal to increase size of housing development

In a letter to the Council, Val Hepworth, Trustee, said: “Peel Park was the first publicly owned park in Bradford, largely due to the vision and efforts of Sir Titus Salt to acquire funding, and he himself was a generous benefactor.

“The Mount was one of three villas to the north which were designed not only to be part of Peel Park, which is sited in the Bolton and Undercliffe area of Bradford, but also to be key features.

“As the proposed housing will be clearly visible from Peel Park and thus part of the setting, it is important that it is of a quality to be sympathetic in the views from the Park.

"We do not think that this is achieved in this proposal and we consider that the proposed white render on exterior walls will be particularly inappropriate.

“Peel Park is a heritage asset much used and enjoyed by the community and for the reasons outlined above we cannot support this proposal and object to it in its present form.”

The Council's Conservation Officer Jon Ackroyd also questioned the plans.

He said that although there were trees between the site and the park, the homes would be visible from areas of the park in winter.

Commenting on the appearance of the planned homes he said: "All features are conventional with modern window proportions, patio doors to the rear elevations addressing the park and plain roofs.

“The indifferent appearance of the proposed development and its resultant visual impact on the Grade II* park, together with lack of clarity in a number of aspects would result in harm to the setting of the asset.

“The development must strive to better integrate into its context and to make a positive impact on the setting of the heritage asset as well as the wider local character.”

The impact on the park was one of several reasons the plans were refused.

Highways officers had raised concerns about parking and the ability of large vehicles to enter and exit the site. Officers also claimed the development would lead to a loss of protected trees.

There was not enough information about the biodiversity of the development, and officers said the planned houses would "be incongruous with existing buildings in the vicinity and would also create a strident feature in the street scene to the detriment of the character and appearance of the locality."