A DEVELOPMENT of almost 50 homes on a Bradford Green Belt site has been refused to “safeguard the countryside from encroachment.”

Proposals to build up to 48 houses on land off Highgate Grove, Clayton Heights, were first revealed by Aura Land last year.

The developers argued that the new homes would provide a much needed boost to Bradford’s housing supply – and this need for new homes outweighed the need to keep this land as an undeveloped, Green Belt site.

An outline planning application for the work attracted over 230 objections, as well as a petition signed by 262 people urging Bradford Council to refuse the plans.

Objectors raised concerns over the potential loss of a Green Belt site, the extra traffic 48 new homes would build, and the effect of the new homes on the value of existing properties in the area.

One objector said: “Home is a haven for us all and to have the place where you feel safe upturned for the 'good of the city' or to meet targets is a failure to the care of the people of the city.”

Development of the Green Belt can only be approved if there are “exceptional circumstances.”

The applicants argued that Bradford’s “pitiful” level of housing development outweighed the need to protect this Green Belt site.

A report by planning officers says the applicant has acknowledged “The proposals will impact upon the openness of the Green Belt as well as giving rise to definitional harm by reason of the development inappropriateness.

“However, for a large peripheral greenfield site the range of other harms are remarkably limited.

“As against those are a range of benefits put into the context of the remarkable circumstances of the pitiful level of market and affordable housing delivery and plan preparation in Bradford.”

But planners were not convinced by this argument. Refusing the plans, they said: “The Council has considered the benefits of the proposed scheme including the contribution it would make to meeting housing need and addressing the District's lack of a five year housing land supply, while at the same time giving substantial weight to the harm which would be caused to the Green Belt in particular the harm which would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt, and the need to check unrestricted sprawl and to safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

“As the benefits of the scheme do not clearly outweigh the harm that would be caused, the proposal fails to demonstrate very special circumstances and would conflict with Government policy.”