Nine homes could be built on green belt land in Yorkshire village

Beck Homes (UK) Ltd recently revealed plans to build nine homes on a plot of land off Crossfield Road in Oxenhope. The plans have already proved controversial, with over 50 people objecting to the proposed development.

Rather than a full planning application, the developer is seeking “permission in principle” – a planning rule recently introduced by the Government that intends to speed up housebuilding in cities, towns and villages.

Under these new rules developers can apply for permission to build on a site without having to provide the details full planning applications usually require.

Councils are ordered to decide on such applications “as quickly as possible.” Once a developer has permission in principle they then have to submit a second application with more technical details.

But whatever the outcome of that second application, the site would still have permission for housing.

The first two permission in principle applications were recently submitted to Bradford Council.

One is for a single dwelling on Bradford Road, Burley in Wharfedale, and was submitted by Richard Deacon. The other is the Beck Homes application for Oxenhope.

Craven Councillor Rebecca Poulsen has criticised the Oxenhope application and the PIP process.

One of her main issues is that in a bid to speed up the planning process, the new rules only give residents 14 days to object to any plans.

She has called for a planning panel to decide whether permission for the site is granted rather than a planning officer.

Permission in principle only applies to developments of nine or fewer homes, and many of the applications submitted across the country so far have been for just one or two properties.

The application for nine homes in Oxenhope argues that the plans should be approved “due to the dire housing land supply situation in the District, and recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and its approach to green belt.”

It says the site should be considered “grey belt” – land that is in the Green Belt but that “does not strongly contribute” to the purpose of the Green Belt.

The applicants argue that this site in Oxenhope does not prevent urban sprawl, preserve the setting of a historic town or prevent neighbouring towns from merging, and so should be stripped of its Green Belt status.

The application says there have been plans to develop the site for a decade, and the land was included in Bradford Council’s draft Local Plan – which suggests that 20 homes could be built on the site.

But delays in implementing that plan have meant the land remains untouched.

The application says: “Whilst delays have occurred to the production of the Local Plan the housing land supply situation has worsened to the extent that the Borough can only demonstrate a supply of 2.08 years of housing (a five year supply is required).

“When assessed using the new guidance regarding development in the green belt, the site is considered grey belt land that can be acceptable for development.”

Coun Poulsen has objected to the plans, saying: “There have only been 14 days for comments which means those who are on holiday and the Village Council who meet monthly are excluded from the process.

“This is a green belt site, and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to permit development on this land.

“In order to consider exceptional circumstances for green belt development a detailed planning application should be the mechanism used, and not the PIP route as the green belt is outside of the settlement boundary of the village.

“It acts as a wildlife corridor with numerous species including deer on the site, that travel the length of the valley and use this as a habitat.”

“If this application is recommended for approval I would request the Chair of Planning refers it to Planning Committee as this is the first PIP application in the area and there are many issues with the process as well as the application that I believe should be discussed and assessed in public to give the many objectors, who have been given very little time to formulate their comments, to respond.”