Angry residents in Riddlesden have called Bradford Council "spineless" in a complaint to the local government ombudsman.

The complaint comes amid accusations of inconsistencies in planning decisions, following an apparent U-turn by the council's planning panel on the future of the former C of E First School site in the village.

Residents adjacent to the Banks Lane site have been involved in a prolonged campaign against controversial constructor Skipton Properties' attempts to develop the site.

The developer wanted to build three-storey houses on the land, but 12 households in Westfield Crescent, which sits substantially lower than the Banks Lane site, protested, claiming that such a development would cause a severe loss of privacy.

However, despite initially turning down the application and the subsequent rejection of an appeal by the builder, planning panel councillors approved amended plans in May.

Residents maintained that the new plans offered little change in terms of their loss of privacy, and felt they had been betrayed by the council.

David Midgeley, of the North Westfield residents group, said: "We regard this as perverse, spineless and contrary to natural justice and the interests of democracy.

"It stands the panel's first decision on its head and sets aside the judgement of the planning inspector."

Last July, the planning panel turned down plans against the advice of officers.

Councillors said that the development "would result in overlooking of neighbouring properties and would appear as a most overbearing feature", adding that it would "seriously detract from the amenities enjoyed by occupiers of adjacent properties and ... not accord with Unitary Development Plan policy GP2".

The developer appealed against the decision in December and the government planning inspector upheld the panel's decision to refuse permission.

He said that the separation distances "would not result in harmful levels of overlooking and loss of privacy" if the development had only been for two-storey houses.

In February, a further application was lodged with amended house designs, which saw the roofs of the buildings rotated to give the impression of two storeys to the houses in Westcliffe Crescent below.

Planning permission was granted in May, but residents claimed that throughout the meeting the planning officer went "far beyond what would have been necessary" to defend the position of recommending approval and that he "dwelt at length on matters that were not at issue." Mr Midgeley said: "We were left with the feeling that agendas were being followed to which we were not privy.

"This design device cannot conceivably be argued to have produced conventional two-storey dwellings.

"The ground floor windows are still higher than the upstairs windows of the houses in Westfield Crescent.

"We regard it as outrageous that the panel has granted permission."

He added: "It has abandoned the principles upon which the council refused the first application and the inspector dismissed the appeal."

Mr Midgeley said that a letter he had received from the ombudsman in response to the complaint stated: "I have summarised the complaint and found that the council has failed perhaps to consider an application for planning permission close to your home.

"In particular the council has failed to take account of reasons for refusal of previous similar applications which were confirmed on appeal."

Cllr Chris Greaves, pictured, chairman of Bradford Council's Planning Panel, said: "The residents had every right to refer this to the ombudsman. We will just have to wait and see what the ombudsman says. I think we gave it a very full and thorough airing.

"The panel did discuss the matter very seriously, and as far as we are concerned, there is no hidden agenda.

"It is a complete redesign, the buildings had significant changes which will considerably reduce the overlooking and there is a planting scheme which is a condition of planning.

"This is actually a brown field site and every time we don't build on a brown field site we build on a green one.

"Planning officers are not allowed to sit on the fence, they have a legal requirement to make a recommendation and it is very unfair to suggest that anyone tried to push it through."

A spokesman for the local government ombudsman said: "We cannot make any comment to third parties as to whether we are conducting an investigation or not."