500 homes and a school secure consent after government U-turn
An application for 500 homes and a primary school has been given consent by the Secretary of State, 18 months after he refused the application.
A resolution to give permission for the homes on land to the west of Burley-in-Wharfedale, near Bradford, was originally passed by Bradford Council in 2018.
But the decision was called in by the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for a public inquiry in 2019. After the inquiry a Government appointed planning inspector recommended the site for approval but was ignored with the Secretary fo State refusing the application.
However in a U-turn, the Secretary of State confirmed last week that planning permission had been granted to CEG.
The scheme will feature 30% affordable homes for local people, new open space, footpaths, cycleways, play areas and biodiversity nature areas on the site.
In addition to £895,000 of local highways and transport improvements and £43,000 of local ecological improvements, the development will provide a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment of about £4.4m for investment into local infrastructure including secondary education, of which £1.1m will be spent by Burley Parish Council.
Steve McBurney from CEG said: “We wholeheartedly welcome this decision. It reflects the Government Planning Inspector’s strong recommendation for approval in 2019.
“It now enables the delivery of 500 much-needed new homes, including affordable homes for local people, and a new primary school, alongside investment into secondary education, public transport and other local improvements.”
However opponents to the scheme including Shipley MP Philip Davies have called this an “act of vandalism” and states that the Secretary fo State was left no choice but to approve the site because Bradford Council had designated Burley-in-Wharfdale as a housing growth area.
He added:“The fact the Secretary of State initially blocked this development shows – in my view – that was his clear personal view. The problem is that it seems he was unable to find a watertight legal case for doing so.”
