A FAST-food giant hopes to overturn a decision to refuse planning permission for a new drive thru restaurant in the centre of Bingley.
Plans for a new McDonalds on the former Bingley Police Station site were refused by Bradford Council’s District Planning Panel in September.
This refusal came despite highways officers, planners and legal experts on the Council all recommending the plans be approved – arguing that there were no reasons under planning law to block the development.
Now the company has lodged an appeal against this decision, and a Government-appointed planning inspector will decide whether the divisive development should go ahead at a future planning hearing.
The appeal refers to the sometimes unconventional nature of the planning meeting, which saw one Councillor tell officers their recommendation the plans be approved was “appalling,” and at one point saw committee members adjourn the meeting so they could come up with a suitable reason to refuse the application.
The planning application for the long-empty Bradford Road site was submitted in 2024. The global food giant said the 96-seat, two-storey branch would employ 70 full time staff and involve a huge investment into the town.
The plans had divided Bingley, with over 400 people writing in support of the plans and 500 people objecting.
A report by planning officers published ahead of the Keighley Town Hall meeting had suggested the plans be approved, saying it would have “a tangible positive benefit to the local economy.”
Highways and planning officers said there were no issues with the proposed development that would justify refusing the plans.
But at the meeting it was clear that several members had concerns with the proposals.
Image: Bradford Council
Councillor Paul Sullivan (Cons, Bingley Rural) described officers’ suggestion that the application should be approved as “appalling” and raised concerns the McDonalds could lead to obesity among Bingley schoolchildren.
Objectors spoke of the traffic and health problems the McDonalds could bring to Bingley, and urged the panel to refuse the application.
At one point during the debate Chair of the Committee Councillor Sinead Engel (Lab, Clayton and Fairweather Green) said: “It seems to me like a large proportion of the objections are because this is a McDonalds.
“If it was a Bettys Tea Room, which serves food that is equally as bad for you and also does takeaway, I don’t think we’d have as many objections.”
After a lengthy discussion five members voted to refuse the application, with three voting for approval. Two members abstained from voting.
What then followed was a highly unusual moment where the meeting was adjourned, and the public asked to leave, so members could come up with a reason to refuse the plans that would comply with planning guidance.
When the public were invited back, members had decided to refuse the plans due to unsafe access into an out of the site and inadequate parking facilities.
McDonalds has now appealed the decision with the Government’s Planning Inspectorate, and have asked for a hearing to “enable a full discussion of these matters.”
It means the final say on the development is now out of the hands of local decision makers.
The 72-page appeal form said: “There is general agreement between the applicant and Council Officers, including specialist highways officers, that the appeal scheme is acceptable in highway and transportation terms.”
The appeal document includes notes from September’s meeting, and refers to the at times heated nature of the debate.
It says: “Both Lucie Fillingham (Planning Officer) and John Rowley (Highways Officer) pointed out that a refusal would be difficult to defend at appeal given both highways and planning officer had confirmed there were no issues with the scheme.
“The Council’s legal officer, Bob Power, said refusing the plans without any clear planning reason could mean the Council would be on dangerous ground should McDonalds appeal the decision.
“There was also an incident where Councillor Paul Sullivan (Cons, Bingley) mentioned that the scheme would result in the loss of on-street parking.
“Lucie Fillingham’s response was along the lines of ‘councillors voted to introduce parking charges at Council-run car parks in the town’.
“Cllr Sullivan took umbrage at this comment and insisted that Lucie Fillingham withdraw this remark as he said that he had not voted to introduce parking charges. This contributed to an atmosphere of (committee) members vs. officers.
“Another officer pushed the Chair to take the vote, on the basis that a motion had been put forward.
“Although Bob Power (Legal Officer) pointed out that the Members needed to define the reasons for refusal, Members pushed for the vote to be taken i.e. ‘let’s vote to refuse and then agree the reasons.’”
The appeal is expected to be heard in March.
