A PLANNING appeal which lumped together one of Ilkley's most exclusive residential areas with derelict industrial wasteland, has been turned down by the Department of the Environment.

Jim Boddy, of Curly Hill, Middleton, wanted permission to build two houses on land near his property, Homewood, but his application was turned down by Bradford Council.

Mr Boddy appealed and he was represented by planning consultant Andrew Rollinson at a hearing at Ilkley Town Hall last month.

Mr Rollinson told Department of the Environment inspector Martin Pike that the planned development would be better designed than other houses in the area.

According to an Ilkley estate agent, houses on Curly Hill cost between £250,000 and £1 million.

"There is a lot of mundane architecture on Curly Hill. According to Government guidelines this is a 'brownfield' site and ought to be made more use of."

Mr Rollinson was referring to Government planning guides designed to protect the green belt and ensure that new houses made use of former industrial sites and previously developed areas of land. Land surrounding large houses is categorised as previously developed.

But Mr Rollinson's comments caused a few raised eyebrows when they were reported in the Gazette. And despite his arguments, the planning inspector has dismissed Mr Boddy's appeal and upheld Bradford Council's decision.

The wedge-shaped piece of land already has one extra house being built on it and objectors were worried about over-development and damage to the woodland setting.

In his report Mr Pike says: "In my opinion, the prominent concentration of visible built mass would give the impression of an over-intensive and cramped development that is not in keeping with the spacious character of the surrounding locality.

"Other areas of recent in-fill development nearby, including those between Curly Hill and Rupert Road, appeared to be more spacious or better hidden from view than would be the case with the appeal proposal."

As part of the hearing, Mr Pike visited the site in question and said he agreed with members of Bradford Council's planning panel about trees in the site area.

Mr Pike says: "The council is concerned that a greater number of trees would eventually be lost to the development, both as a result of damage to tree roots from construction works and through pressure for felling from future occupiers - I believe this concern to be well-founded.

"In my judgment the proposal would create a cluster of development that would dominate this part of Curly Hill, at odds with the spacious character of dwellings set in a wooded landscape."

One Curly Hill resident who objected to the planning application, Barbara Cussons, said she was pleased at the inspector's decision.

"I think the inspector did a very good job in setting a precedent for the protection of woodland," said Mrs Cussons.

Mr Rollinson told the Gazette that he was disappointed with the inspector's decision and would be meeting with Mr Boddy to decide whether to submit an alternative planning application.

But he said it was clear from the inspector's report that the principle of development on the site had not been ruled out. "He said that this scheme is not acceptable but he has left the door open for another scheme," said Mr Rollinson.