PLANS to build a housing development, including a “trailer park” for the elderly, on green belt land have been thrown out by councillors, with one saying it should be a “warning” to other developers.

The application, by GCL Developments, would have seen 100 houses and 30 “affordable dwellings” built on a field off Goose Cote Lane, Keighley, much of which is designated as protected green belt.

At a meeting of Bradford Council’s Regulatory and Appeals Committee yesterday, the scheme was refused after councillors agreed the developers could not give a good enough reason why houses needed to be built in Keighley’s green belt. It emerged during the meeting that the affordable dwellings would be a series of static caravans, separated from the rest of the homes – a set up one councillor compared to a US style trailer park.

Although the developer argued that static caravans were becoming increasingly popular with elderly people looking to downsize, the committee was not impressed with their idea of affordable housing provision, which needs to be provided in all housing developments of a certain size.

There had been over 180 objections to the application, and a group of 34 objectors had hired a coach to attend the meeting, held in Bradford City Hall.

Other objectors to the plans had included the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society. The development would be a short distance from Damems Railway Station - which is on the heritage rail route, and is considered Britain’s smallest standard-gauge railway station.

The group said the development would “change the character of the area beyond recognition.”

Normally, houses are only allowed on green belt land if developers can show “special circumstances.”

During the meeting, Mike Eaglestone, senior planning officer, told members the applicants had provided no such circumstances.

Speaking at the meeting, Brian Wormwell, who lives on Goose Cote Lane, called it a “cheeky application.”

Cllr Rebecca Poulsen (Con, Worth Valley) and Cllr Cath Bacon (Lab, Keighley West) – the application straddles both their wards – also opposed the plan.

Sam Dewar, agent for the applicants, told the meeting: “This site is available for housing, it is deliverable now and it is completely viable.”

He argued that not enough houses were being built in the Bradford district, stating that this should prove the exceptional circumstances for the development to be allowed.

The “affordable” section of the application would have a different access point than the rest of the houses, and Councillor Glen Miller (Con, Worth Valley) said: “This looks very segregated. It doesn’t look at all inclusive to me. I have never been aware of a situation where a council has accepted static caravans as affordable housing for a housing development.”

Councillor Alun Griffiths (Lib Dem, Idle) said: “I don’t like this idea of a US style trailer park for elderly people.

“The fact that there is need for housing in Bradford is not enough. If we allow this for that reason, then it opens up green belt across the district to developers.”

The plans were refused for several reasons, including being inappropriate development in the green belt, that it would unacceptably harm the character of the landscape to the detriment of the local tourist industry, that the plan did not properly and fully assess land stability issues and that it “does not properly assess the archaeological potential of the site”

After the meeting, Cllr Bacon said: “This was across wards and across political parties. That doesn’t happen very often. It shows what can be done when everyone works together. What seemed to upset councillors the most was the idea of static caravans. It is important that we protect the green belt for the future.

Cllr Poulsen added: “These 30 static caravans won’t be for the young families that normally need affordable homes.

“We hope this sends a warning to other developers that are looking to build on green belt land - we won’t let that happen.”