THACKLEY residents were “not in a position” to fight plans to build a house on a garden space at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, a councillor argued.

A planning application to build on a garden next to 1 Hyde Street was approved by planning officers in April 2020 – when the country was experiencing the first Covid lockdown.

The development never went ahead, and planning permission has since expired.

Another nearly identical application was submitted to Bradford Council in May, and on Wednesday a planning panel met to decide whether the second scheme should also be approved.

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: An artist's impression of the planned home An artist's impression of the planned home (Image: Janus Architecture)

There had been 20 objections to the plans, and Cllr Alun Griffiths (Lib Dem, Idle and Thackley) had asked that the panel decide on the scheme, rather than planning officers.

Officers had argued that as the scheme was the same as one that had already been approved, this second application should also be given the green light.

But Cllr Griffiths argued approval should not be “automatic” – as objectors may have had other things on their minds in April 2020.

The application, by a Mrs Devereux, was for a four-bedroom detached home on the large garden next to 19th Century 1 Hyde Street.

Objectors had raised numerous concerns, including the loss of green space in the area, the potential that building on green space could increase flooding risk, and the increase in traffic on the un-adopted Hyde Street.

Planning officers said highways and drainage officers said the scheme would not cause any issues that would warrant a planning refusal.

Cllr Griffiths spoke on behalf of objectors, saying: “This garden is not a square of grass in front of a new-build semi. It is a large, mature, fairly wild area with shrubs and trees.

“The last application was approved at a time when residents were not in the position to make representations. We’re not saying a mistake was made with that approval, but the situation meant concerns that might have been raised were not raised.”

Jo Steele, representing the applicants, said: “If approved it is clear this application is not just being rubber-stamped – detailed reports have been included with this application.”

With the same plan being approved three years ago, Mr Steele argued there would have to have been a “significant change” in planning policy for this latest application to be refused.

Cllr Brendan Stubbs (Lib Dem, Eccleshill) said: “I can’t see anything in this application that is much worse than the one that came before.

“It is frustrating for residents to have a development on their doorsteps, but I can’t see a reason to refuse this.”

Three members of the panel voted to approve the plans, one objected and two abstained.