A GOVERNMENT inspector has backed Bradford Council’s decision to refuse controversial plans for a housing development near the M606.

Last year Bradford Council refused an application by Caddick Land to build 146 homes on a field off Rooley Crescent.

Members of the Regulatory and Appeals Committee had raised highway safety concerns, highlighted poor public transport links to the site and pointed out the dangers of contamination of the adjacent site spreading to this land.

Last year Caddick Lane appealed this refusal decision, meaning a Government appointed planning inspector would have a final say on the application.

This week planning inspector Darren Hendley dismissed the appeal, raising concerns about how affordable housing would be provided, and about how drainage will be provided on the site.

The application had proved controversial. A petition signed by over 400 people called for the housing plan to be scrapped, and a further 150 objection comments were sent to the Council.

Controversial plans for 146 homes near M606 are refused

Some of the objection comments were critical of the Councillors who sit on the committee, even before they made their decision.

Objectors claimed they were “not bothered” because they don’t live hear the site and that the application was a “done deal.”

Members felt there were too many downsides to the plans, and refused the application.

The appeal was submitted in September, along with a 256 page document detailing why the Council’s decision should be overturned.

Mr Hendley’s report was critical of the developer’s decision to deal with some of the pressing issues regarding the application through a unilateral undertaking that he described as “defective.”

He said this undertaking, a kind of planning agreement, “would not give the assurance that the affordable housing would be delivered.”

He also claimed this agreement would not guarantee proper drainage works would be completed on the site.

The report said: “Without the certainty that the watercourse improvements would be made, the proposal would not provide adequate surface water drainage infrastructure and, in these circumstances, it would have the potential to cause flood risk.”

The inspector’s report said Bradford was not meeting housing supply targets – Councils are supposed to have a five year housing supply, but Bradford can only demonstrate a 2 year supply.

The inspector said: “The shortfall is significant and the proposal would make an important contribution to alleviating the deficit and improving delivery. It would accord with the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes.”

But he added: “The proposal would not make adequate provision for both the need for affordable housing and drainage infrastructure with regard to minimising flood risk. I find the harm, when taken together, to be very significant.

“Taking these matters together, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”

Despite the appeal being dismissed, Caddick Land recently submitted another application for the same site, again to build a development of 146 homes.

A decision on that application is expected to be made by Bradford Council this Summer.