Keighley planning councillors have passed the second part of a housing development in Haworth after they were warned behind closed doors that refusing the application could lead to a costly legal challenge.

Labour councillor Martin Leathley originally put forward a proposal to reject the application for the 29 homes, to be built partly on a Unitary Development Plan allocated housing land and partly on a brown field site at Lees Lane, Haworth, opposite the former scouring plant.

But he was thwarted when council lawyers intervened at a planning meeting yesterday in Keighley Town Hall.

Skipton Properties claimed that the combined costs of decontaminating the site, dealing with a highly toxic waste pool, clearing the site and building a new sewer meant it should not have to make any educational payments or provide affordable housing as is customary with large developments.

The cost of the decontamination work is estimated to be over £235,000 and David Walton, solicitor for Skipton Properties, speaking at the meeting, said: "All of these costs are completely abnormal and way above what a developer would expect to have to pay for a green field site.

"It is in your council's own policy to make an exception in cases like this," he added.

Cllr Leathley said this was not reason enough to escape paying for community gains and said the high costs necessary for redevelopment would have been reflected in the original low cost of acquiring the site.

The Keighley News and public were then excluded as the committee received legal advice from Bradford council's lawyer for Keighley planning Tim Ayres.

When the committee reconvened Cllr Leathley's proposal to refuse the application was defeated. Chairman of the planning panel, Cllr Chris Greaves, then proposed the application was accepted and it was passed by four votes to three.

The Keighley News understands that during the in-camera meeting councillors were warned they had insufficient grounds to refuse the application and if they did so the developers could launch a potentially costly appeal.