Inspector dismisses appeal that would allow homes to be built on Silsden site

Although the inspector dismissed an appeal against the Council's choice to refuse plans for the development of the Willows site, she did not agree with Councillors' concerns that access to the site by road would be unsafe.

In February Bradford Council's Regulatory and Appeals Committee refused the application to build housing on land off Hainsworth Road - currently a field next to the canal.

Despite planning officers recommending the plans be approved, members argued that access to the land - via a road that only has space for one car in parts and with protected hedges on either side, was not suitable for a housing development of this scale.

Concerns over narrow access road lead to Silsden homes plans being refused

Their reason for refusal was that the development "would result in an intensification of the use of a substandard access road, which is deficient in terms of width, geometry and forward visibility that would be prejudicial to highway safety."

Applicant Mick Smith lodged an appeal against this decision shortly after, and now Planning Inspector Alison Partington has made the decision to dismiss that appeal.

However, she claimed the development was unsuitable for a completely different reason than the Council - that the new housing estate would not include any homes that would be classed as affordable.

When the application was discussed in February, there was no exact number of houses included. Mrs Partington's decision was on the basis that 44 houses would be built on the land if planning was approved.

The appeal had claimed the housing would not cause any traffic safety issues, as the plans would provide improved junction works, a pedestrian footpath and a traffic priority scheme that would require cars travelling South Easterly to give way to oncoming traffic.

It also argued that Bradford Council did not have a five year housing supply - Government requires all Council's to show they have enough housing land available to meet housing need for the next five years.

However, Mrs Partington backs the applicant on the traffic issue. In her decision she says: "I consider that with the proposed highway improvements highway and pedestrian safety would not be adversely affected by the proposed development."

However, she does refer to the need for affordable housing in the application, pointing out that in towns like Silsden, developments of this size should include 20 per cent affordable housing.

The decision says that while the appeal refers to affordable housing, there is no document giving any details of this condition.

It says: "Without any mechanism before me which would secure the provision of affordable housing on the site, I am not satisfied that the proposed development would make adequate provision for affordable housing.

"I consider the site to be in an accessible location, close to a good range of services and facilities as well as public transport. The development, both through the construction phase and through the spending of future occupiers, would bring some benefits to the local economy.

"However, in the absence of any mechanism to secure the provision of affordable housing on the site, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan and would fail to make any contribution to meeting the need for affordable housing in the district.

"Overall, I consider the benefits of the proposed development would be modest and the harm caused by not providing affordable housing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."