TAXPAYERS should not "subsidise" local property developers, a major local company has been told.

Skipton Properties has been refused permission to build a new housing estate in the centre of Harden, after councillors raised concerns they had claimed they would not be able to contribute to local facilities.

Skipton Properties already has permission to build houses on an area of land off Keighley Road in the centre of the village. Conditions of the approval were that the developers provide contributions to the local community, called a 106 agreement, amounting to over £109,000. It would include £46,708 to improve facilities at Cullingworth Primary School, £20,419 to make improvements to the St Ives Estate park and £31,893 to provide residents of the new homes with Metro travel cards, to reduce the amount of car journeys from the site.

Six of the properties also had to be classed as affordable homes.

Skipton Properties more recently submitted a more detailed application, for 28 houses, including house types and layouts.

But they also asked the Council to drop the 106 contributions, saying there were "abnormal costs" in developing the site, and it would be "unviable" if they had to pay the money.

The updated plans were discussed by members of the Council's Regulatory and Appeals Committee on Thursday, where members raised concerns about the contributions being dropped.

Councillor Riaz Ahmed (Lib Dem, Bradford Moor), said: "These contributions are basically £3,000 a house. If you don't pay this, are we not then subsidising a developer? Should we be allowing that? Would we just be saying to developers 'go off - do a feasibility study and then we'll subsidise your development."

Agent for Skipton Properties Jay Everett, said: "Skipton Properties is a high quality family business that produces high quality family homes. If permission is granted then we'll crack on and provide high quality homes for the district."

He was asked what made the site so difficult to build on that they would not be able to make their agreed contributions.

He said that after surveys on the site, the developers found that the levels and ground conditions were problematic.

Councillor Mike Pollard (Cons, Baildon) replied: "It's on a big hill. I don't see how you could have reasonably been surprised by that."

Other Councillors raised concerns over plans to include three storey buildings on the site, and how close some of the buildings were to listed buildings and the St Ives Estate.

Kay Kirkham from Harden Parish Council said: "This development doesn't respond to the local identity. Three storey houses are not suitable for this site."

Referring to the viability assessment, she said: "Does this mean the developer will make a loss on this site, or will they just not make as much profit? The loss of these 106 contributions is not acceptable. Harden needs affordable homes, children need to be educated, it is not too much to ask for from a company that made £4.5 million pre-tax profit last year."

Councillor Alan Wainwright (Lab, Tong) said: "I'm surprised that a local, well known builder that has had a lot of dealings with Bradford Council has come here begging for us to let them off with £100,000 of contributions.

"I'm surprised with their experience that they didn't suss out the problems beforehand."

The plans were then refused due to the impact of the development on the setting of a Grade II listed building, of the visual impact of three storey buildings in the development, and the proximity of the development to trees in the protected St Ives Estate.

Chris Young | Senior Reporter