Terry Brown, who is campaigning against the proposed development as chairman of Greenhill Action Group (GAG), was on the canalside for yesterday’s failed demonstration, which was supposed to allow the inspector to see a narrow boat sail through the open swing bridge. Mr Brown said: “For some reason the bridge is not closing. My concern is that it may be seen that GAG or somebody supporting GAG has tampered with it to prove the point about what happens when the bridge breaks down. I would not condone sabotage at all.”

Airedale Boat Club member Peter Saunders, who was operating the bridge, said: “It is not unusual for it to break down. The last time I came through, we were waiting for well over an hour.”

The bridge, in Micklethwaite Lane, will be crucial to the inspector’s decision following a public inquiry on whether to allow the appeal by developers Bellway and Redrow. Campaigners say a new bridge will not be able to handle a huge increase in traffic if the homes are built. There are also concerns that the emergency services would be delayed in reaching residents of the new homes if the bridge breaks down while it is open – blocking Micklethwaite Lane.

The developers say that Oakwood Drive will be used as an emergency exit from the site if the bridge breaks.

However, Mr Brown said: “We have heard at the inquiry that if the bridge is faulty, it will take British Waterways at least an hour to come to find out what is wrong with it. Meanwhile, nobody would be able to move off the site. Once British Waterways has decided, it will take the Council another hour to get somebody out to set up traffic lights at the end of Oakwood Drive. So for two hours the traffic would be building up. It is a farce.”

Diana North, who lives yards from the bridge in Airedale Mills, said she did not believe anyone had tampered with the bridge’s safety gates. She said: “It breaks down sometimes and traffic cannot get through at all. That is the problem.”

A bridge engineer for the developers did not want to comment.

The public inquiry, which is being held at City Hall, Bradford, is expected to hear closing submissions from the developers and the Council on Tuesday.

Giving evidence yesterday, Coun Heseltine (Con, Bingley) said: “We have to get to a point where we look at the local infrastructure and say that the roads can’t cope, the schools are full, the trains are overcrowded and that Bingley is full.” Coun Heseltine conceded that the Bingley bypass had cut the number of vehicles using Keighley Road from 28,300 every day before it was opened in 2003 to 14,000 in 2008, according to Highways Agency figures. However, in the same period, traffic in Bingley Road, Nab Wood had risen from 28,100 to 35,600 vehicle journeys each day – putting greater pressure on Saltaire Roundabout. Rural roads such as Micklethwaite Lane, Otley Road and Glovershaw Lane had also seen rises in traffic. The rail network is also badly overcrowded, he said.

Andrew Williamson, for the developers, said Bingley had been earmarked for development in the Council’s latest draft planning policies. Coun Heseltine said: “We have to look at the bigger picture.”

Earlier in the hearing, Councillor Michael Ellis (Con, Bingley Rural), a Shipley Area Planning Panel member who had voted against the proposed scheme, was asked by Mr Williamson what specifically he thought officers had “got wrong”. Coun Ellis said he believed a new swing bridge as the main entrance to the site would not be able to cope with the amount of traffic using it.

The public inquiry is expected to continue on Monday.

Government-appointed planning inspector Richard Clegg is being asked to reverse a decision by Bradford Council to refuse the plans after concerns about access to the proposed development over a new canal swing bridge crossing the Leeds-Liverpool Canal.

Evidence into the number of cars which would be using the bridge has been withdrawn by the Council along with expert advice about the heritage of the green field site. One of the few remaining points of contention between the developers and the Council is an emergency access from the proposed site from Oakwood Drive, that would be used when the proposed swing bridge is broken or closed for maintenance, and leads onto Lady Lane.

Richard Gelder, the Council’s transport development manager, told the hearing that the junction of Oakwood Drive and Lady Lane was “dangerous”. He said the sloping junction and another section of Lady Lane had been added to improvements but no money had been made available. Andrew Williamson, for the developers, said to Mr Gelder: “If we could engineer an improvement to that junction as a result of this development, it would actually be a positive. If we can remove an accident blackspot, which is on a site of concern, that is a reason for agreeing planning permission not refusing it. Wouldn’t you agree?” He said: “Yes, I would agree.”

Greenhill Action Group (GAG) which has opposed the Sty Lane development, describing it as a “crackpot scheme doomed to failure.” Jack Smyth, the group’s barrister, called traffic expert Geoff Bowman to give evidence at yesterday’s hearing. Mr Bowman, who has 25 years experience of traffic planning, said there was “no guarantee” any traffic improvements could be delivered at the junction. The public inquiry was due to continue today at City Hall.

Battle lines have been drawn in the fight for greenfield land at Sty Lane, Micklethwaite, near Bingley, where between 420 and 440 homes could be built under a scheme put forward by developers Bellway and Redrow.

Government inspector Richard Clegg opened the public inquiry yesterday after the developers appealed against Bradford Council’s refusal of planning permission.
Mr Clegg will now decide on the future of the planned housing estate and, crucially, whether to allow a new swing bridge to be built over the Leeds Liverpool Canal, to provide the main access to the site.

Greenhill Action Group (GAG), who have raised £60,000 to fight the plans, have raised fears about road safety and the inability of the transport network to cope with so many new homes. Jack Smyth, the barrister representing GAG at yesterday’s hearing, said: “The idea that the primary means of access to a 440-home housing estate is a swing bridge is without precedent. It is a crackpot scheme which is doomed to failure.”

The inquiry heard evidence from heart specialist Dr Christopher Morley, who warned that lives could be lost unless developers could guarantee there would be no delays in ambulances reaching patients. Dr Morley, who works at Bradford Royal Infirmary and lives off Greenhill Lane, Micklethwaite, called for proof that there would be no risk to public safety if the swing bridge was closed in the future.

He said: “My considerable concern is that the developers should provide absolute assurance, with proof beyond doubt that there is no risk of delay from the site. Each minute’s delay results in more deaths. It is the lives of my neighbours and patients which would be lost.” The doctor was among about 100 people at the public hearing, which is set to continue today in City Hall, Bradford.

The developers’ barrister Andrew Williamson told the inquiry he would prove that the planning benefits would “outweigh any harms” identified by objectors. He said the developers would keep “the existing landscape, form and character” of the area “at the heart of the scheme’s design”.

Mr Smyth hit out claims that up to 440 homes would not cause “material harm” to the greenfield area next to the canal. He said: “This is probably the most incredible submission I have ever heard at a planning inquiry.”

Martin Carter, representing the Council, said the planned emergency access from Oakwood Drive, was “inadequate” and put highway safety at risk. A replacement swing bridge as the main route to the estate would be inadequate and impractical, he said.