A 'SPECIAL' area of Ilkley will be preserved thanks to a Government inspector's decision to back planning chiefs.

Department of the Environment inspector Chris Watson has dismissed an appeal from Spellman Developments over a site at Cranford, Parish Ghyll Lane.

The developer had appealed against Bradford Council's decision to refuse planning permission for a fourth house on a site which already had three new homes on it.

Keighley Area Planning Panel chairman Chris Greaves (Con, Wharfedale) was very happy with the decision.

He said: "I am delighted that the inspector agreed with the council. That is an area of Ilkley which is particularly special because there is an awful lot of woodland.

"If developers try to squeeze a house on every postage stamp sized piece of land, it would completely wreck the area."

Although people living near the area told a public inquiry at Ilkley Town Hall that they were worried about flooding if the new house was built, the inspector's report says his decision was based on other factors.

He says: "Whilst I note some local residents concerns regarding the possibility of increased flooding due to possible disturbance to natural land drainage, I have been provided with no technical information to demonstrate that the additional dwelling would clearly cause such adverse effects."

But the report indicates that the inspector agrees with the original decision made by the planning panel that the site is worth conserving as it is.

Mr Watson says: "In my view the sloping nature of the site with the small stream passing through creates a pleasant feature within a mainly spacious woodland setting.

"It is these attributes which to my mind justified the inclusion of the site and adjacent land on the south side of Parish Ghyll Lane in the Conservation Area when the latter was extended in 2002.

"Whilst the site is not a designated open space, I consider it adds to the sense of spaciousness in the area.

"As the land falls away steeply towards Parish Ghyll Lane and the stream, significant changes in ground levels would be required to accommodate the dwelling.

"This would, in my view, result in the house unduly dominating the space and significantly reducing the value of the site as an area of pleasant, open land characterised by natural features and vegetation.

"Overall, the balance between development and the open character of the area would change from being landscape dominant to building dominated and as such, I consider it would be materially harmful to the character of the Conservation Area."

Coun Greaves said that developers should note that the inspector considered that the planning panel had made the right decision in the first place.

And he added that in all the planning appeals held between April 2003 and March 2004, whether they won or not, Bradford Council had not been made to pay costs.

And on two occasions, unusually, developers had been told to pay Bradford Council's fees.

He said that the figures showed that the planning panel was making sound decisions whether inspectors agreed with them or not.