A GOVERNMENT planning inspector has thrown out an appeal to build on an area of Bradford land, saying the plans did not include enough housing.

Last year Bradford Council refused a planning application to build two homes on an area of land called Litton Cheney, off All Along Road in the Wrose area.

Among the reasons for refusal was the claim that the density of the housing was too low - planning officers said the brownfield site could accommodate much more than two houses.

Officers pointed out that Bradford was in need of new housing, and said: "The development of previously developed sites such as this at such low densities would be an inefficient use of land creating additional pressure to develop on greenfield and greenbelt sites."

Officers also raised concerns about highway safety and potential contamination at the site.

Bradford pensioner slams 'speeding' drivers on All Alone Road after her wall was hit 'six times’

Applicant Mark Holmes appealed the decision, arguing that the two detached homes were a suitable development for the vacant site. The appeal meant a Government appointed planning inspector would have final say on the development.

Inspector A M Nillson has now dismissed that appeal, agreeing with the Council's decision.

They said: "Developers will be expected to make the best, and most efficient use of land.

"Densities should normally achieve at least a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare. This development would achieve a density of 11 dwellings per hectare.

"The figure falls significantly short of the expected density. The proposed development therefore fails to deliver an amount of housing that would sufficiently contribute to meeting housing supply."

They also agreed with the Council over the highway safety issues, saying: " In terms of the pedestrian environment that would be in place for future occupants and their visitors, the lack of any dedicated footpath would require pedestrians to walk in the road from the junction with Westfield Lane.

"When combined with the lack of streetlighting, this would create an unsafe and highly undesirable pedestrian environment that weighs against the proposed development in its current form.

"The development would also conflict with the requirement that developments give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas, and create places that are safe, secure and attractive, which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles."

They said the site's history as a stone yard meant there was a "high risk" of contamination and said the appeal included: "insufficient information in relation to land contamination."