A HOUSING developer has been told to have a major re-think over its 56 house scheme for Pool-in-Wharfedale.

Taylor Wimpey gained outline planning permission - at appeal - last summer for its proposals for a site south of Pool Road, behind Church Close.

But Leeds City Council has now comprehensively rejected the company's detailed plans on five grounds, including the number of proposed properties.

Taylor Wimpey is hoping to build a mixture of 18 two bedroom houses, 18 three bedroom houses and 21 four bedroom houses.

The local authority, however, has concluded that the scheme as it stands would be 'significantly harmful' in terms of:

*The appearance of the proposed buildings which would result in an 'unsympathetic and inappropriate mix of house types, scales, materials and designs'

*Failing to provide for appropriate pedestrian and cycle connectivity, car parking and a suitable route for the Wharfedale Greenway

*Offering inadequate distance between some houses, too small front gardens and other landscaping issues.

Referring to the landscaping problems, the report states: "As a result the proposal raises significant potential noise, air pollution, health, biodiversity, ecological, landscape, amenity and character concerns."

Councillor Barry Anderson (Con, Adel & Wharfeale) is pleased with the outcome and hopes it will cause the developer to make significant changes.

He said: "I would much prefer them to come back with a revised scheme that addresses all of the concerns than submit an appeal.

"One of the major issues that needs to be addressed is the requirement to provide a relief road. Similarly, the requirement to provide an upgrade to the roundabout at the White Hart is proving difficult.

"I am pleased that the quantity of housing has been cited as a reason for refusal as the proposal is for more houses than was granted at outline stage - this is a perfect example of a developer, once again, trying to cram more houses into an area than is suitable.

"And the Wharfedale Greenway will be an important future feature of the landscape - this would be compromised by the layout of the proposals.

"It would be great if the developer would provide a design that was sympathetic to the surrounding area with appropriate styles, materials and scale of design.

"The principle of development has been agreed and this site will be developed but it is really important that we get something that complements the village, is sustainable, has complete regard for the surroundings and the wildlife and conservation area and addresses the transport infrastructure issues.

"With the council declaring a Climate Change Emergency, which was not the case when the application was allowed by the Inspector, this also needs to be fully taken into account by the developer if they revise their scheme."