Residents are furious at new housing 'raping' their town

And they fear that the unique character of their town is being destroyed as it is inundated by the new homes, which they claim bring 'nightmare' traffic problems on the already congested A65, increases rat-running and put a strain on services like schools which are already stretched.

There are also fears that semi-rural Guiseley will become 'buried' under a mountain of bricks and concrete.

Persimmon Homes has planning permission to build 62 homes on Back Lane, Barratt Homes is seeking approval for 94 homes on the Greenwoods site, and Leeds City Council has granted permission for 19 flats and a Cannons Health Club at the Grade Two listed former tram depot, currently Arnold Lavers, at White Cross.

The Saxon Wells development on former Silver Cross land is now nearing completion and a buyer for the High Royds site has yet to be announced, but the eventual development is expected to include a number of houses. A Travelodge with more than 40 beds has also been passed at the back of Harry Ramsden's car park.

Campaigning Back Lane resident Dennis Conlon said the area was in danger of becoming 'swamped' with housing and claimed that many people were angry that their arguments against the developments appeared to have been ignored.

He said: "Many people around here are very angry at what has been happening. Many have come out with some very strong comments - they feel that they have been 'screwed' and that Guiseley has been raped. We are being dumped on and no-one seems to be listening to us.

"People feel that their objections have been completely ignored by the planning committee. Guiseley is changing - and not for the better - but we seem unable to stop its character from being eroded."

Mr Conlon said he feared for the community of Guiseley as he knows it.

"The council won't be happy until we're buried under mountains of bricks and concrete.

"Personally, I am not happy that the YEB site plans were passed - everybody has their idea of what is reasonable, but 62 houses is still unreasonable to me, even though the number was reduced from over 100. The effect that and other developments have on traffic, pollution, noise and road safety should not be underestimated in a community that used to be renowned for its quietness."

Mr Conlon said the only way residents' voices would be heard is if a body with the same clout as the old Aireborough Urban District Council was formed.

Fellow campaigner Noel Harrison said that the township's character had changed forever - and that residents faced a daily worry about the ever-increasing speed and volume of traffic.

"The number of new developments either being planned or being built has reached saturation point. I was born in the town over 70-odd years ago and things have changed beyond belief, particularly in recent years.

"There have been different developments and with Arnold Lavers closing down and moving into the Towngate area, that is going to make things even worse because all the traffic that went there will end up going down Springfield Road."

Mr Harrison said that when he had spoken to council planning officers they said that the council had been told by the Government to find land for 2,000 new houses in Leeds.

"We must have had our share and a bit more," he said. "The A65 is busy at the best of times. We were lucky to bring it down that low," he said.

Graham Hoult, of Guiseley and Menston Green Belt Action Group (GAMGBAG), believes the influx of new homes has both positive and negative implications for the township.

He said originally GAMGBAG's sole aim was to protect the green belt areas between Guiseley and Menston, but the organisation has now moved onto thinking about the issue of brownfield development, and the impact on the area of ongoing or planned developments.

Mr Hoult said: "Our view on that is that it is the preferable option to building on the Green Belt, as long as the scale and style of the building is in keeping with the locality, and traffic access onto the A65 is by the safest route with the minimal disruption to local people."

He said it would be unrealistic to assume that the current sites up for development - such as the former YEB site on Back Lane, Greenwoods factory site and High Royds Hospital site - will not be developed in some way.

The issue for Guiseley residents, said Mr Hoult, is one of making sure future housing developments are acceptable. He feels that Guiseley shops and other businesses may benefit from an injection of extra residents.

Mr Hoult also feels that Guiseley people have 'nothing to fear' from the development of the High Royds Hospital site, which he says will have a less significant impact on Guiseley than smaller housing developments.

Leeds City Council planning officers have already drawn up regulations to prevent certain types of development on the site, and encourage a mix of housing, leisure and office or institutional use - such as a new school.

But he feels the argument that the character of Guiseley is at risk is no longer a valid planning reason for objecting to developments.

"The character of Guiseley changed when Tranmere Park was built. Guiseley was a small, isolated mill town until just after the Second World War, but it had already become a commuting centre for Leeds and Bradford," said Mr Hoult.

He said the battle for now is to make sure the area is kept safe and clean, and to restrict development on the smaller sites.

And Mr Hoult believes services in Guiseley may even benefit from a larger population - for instance, a doctors' practice could take on an extra GP if it proved that there is enough demand.

Chairman of Aireborough Community Involvement Team, city councillor, Mike Dunn (Lab, Aireborough), believes Guiseley's popularity is down to people increasingly finding the area an attractive place to live.

He said: "The current rash of housing development in Guiseley is all taking place on land which has formerly had an industrial or commercial use. When an industrial site becomes vacant, every effort should be, and usually is, made to maintain its use for employment, but if no industrial user can be found, a change of use to 'residential' is often the only way the land can be disposed of."

Coun Dunn said councillors thoroughly scrutinise all new planning applications, and apply rigorous planning controls, to make sure the new developments are in harmony with the town.

He said current Government planning guidance recommends the use of brownfield sites before green areas are considered.

Coun Dunn said one of the important roles of the CIT in coming years will be monitor planning applications.

Councillor Graham Latty, (Con, Aireborough) said the views of local people should be given greater consideration.

He said: "I feel that in the UDP, there was a certain amount of housing designated to be built. But in Aireborough, and particularly in Guiseley, there has been a proliferation of brownfield sites, distorting the number of houses out of proportion."

Coun Latty said he feared the demand for school places, registration with GPs and NHS dentists would be difficult to meet, and he attacked the claim that Guiseley has good transport links. He said drivers into Leeds or Bradford face very long queues each day, and said trains are often full by the time they reach Guiseley Station.

The building of expensive new houses also means that native Guiseley people are having to move elsewhere, said Coun Latty.

A spokeswoman for Education Leeds said: "We have taken into account all the potential developments in the Guiseley area when planning our city-wide school reorganisation, and there isn't any need for a new school.

"Currently there is some spare capacity in the local schools and the birth-rate is falling nationally, which is expected to create more space by the time many of these new houses are built and occupied."

She said that Education Leeds is likely to seek a contribution towards school provision from the future developer of the High Royds site, if plans go ahead.