A LONG awaited report on the planning blueprint for the district's future, the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), is due for publication at the end of February.

Around 60 per cent of the Inspector's Report has now been published in draft form, although these parts of the report are thought unlikely to change.

The implications of the report will be far-reaching and could change the face of our communities beyond recognition.

THE inspector's draft report for Pool-in-Wharfedale under the Leeds UDP could see the village increase in size by up to 40 per cent.

Pool contains several key sites which are earmarked for development, including the controversial Swallow Drive housing bid, which the UDP inspector has approved.

The application to build homes on the green belt land has been opposed by residents who say village facilities and roads cannot cope with the increased population.

But within the draft report, the inspector recommends that a second access off Arthington Lane, with arrangements to prevent 'rat running' through the estate, would cope with extra traffic.

However, he states that the main road - the A658 - would approach its maximum capacity very quickly.

"The only satisfactory long-term solution is a western bypass together with some improvements on Arthington Lane," he says. "It seems equitable that all sizeable new developments should contribute to necessary highway improvements throughout the village, not simply those in western Pool."

Such improvements along Arthington Lane would include widening at 'pinch points', and traffic lights at the White Hart pub. The inspector also recommends that any housing development should be phased over longer periods of time to help not only the developers, but also the village and its infrastructure.

Further house building is recommended for Whitegates, at Arthington Lane, where there is room for 23 homes linked to the Swallow Drive estate with a second access to Arthington Lane.

Infill building is also approved between existing developments along Arthington Lane at Penrith and Reivers, and Brooklea and Fairfield.

The UDP inspector does not consider this to be out of character with the village, which, he states is not an historic town, rather containing a series of small modern housing estates. "Pool has suffered from short-sighted piecemeal planning," he reports.

A city council proposal to build new houses at Church Close is, however, rejected by the inspector due to substandard access on to Main Street.

Another major cause for concern among villagers is the future of sand and gravel extraction at Midgley Farm - which has also been approved in the draft report.

Extraction from the site could take place up to the year 2006, but the inspector does state that HGV traffic should be directed towards Otley and not through Pool by including legally enforceable conditions in any planning approval.

But there is a boost for public transport as the inspector suggests that Arthington Station should be reopened.

All the proposals would be contained within a further, more detailed plan specifically for Pool to oversee the developments in the long term.

Pool Parish Council is considering the various proposals contained within the draft report which will be discussed in detail at its meeting next Monday.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.