PROTESTERS fighting plans to build more than 100 homes in Pool-in-Wharfedale have been told the green belt land will be developed - the only question is when.

A public inquiry heard this week that the prospect of taking land at Swallow Drive out of the green belt - as proposed in the Leeds' Unitary Development Plan (UDP) - was already agreed.

Government inspector Karl Moxon said: "This is about when the release of this land from the green belt might happen, rather than if."

The inquiry, held at Leeds Civic Hall, centred around an appeal by Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd against Leeds City Council's failure to decide if the principle of building homes at Swallow Drive was acceptable or not.

Mr Moxon ruled out all arguments already debated at the original UDP inquiry into Pool in 1996, including concerns over road safety at the junction of Swallow Drive with the A658, the impact on the local infrastructure and any effect on local flora and fauna.

"I believe there are three main topics on which we should concentrate," he said. These were:

l Whether Redrow could provide 'very special circumstances' to justify the immediate release from the green belt.

Redrow bosses, represented by Stephen Sauvain, claimed they had already done that but the city council said it now had a five-year supply of land from other, less controversial sites.

l If, in the light of the draft UDP, the application was premature.

The UDP inspector has recommended that Swallow Drive be developed along with adjoining land at Whitegates, also earmarked for housing, to give a more comprehensive approach to the development. Anthony Crean, representing Leeds City Council, said that granting permission now would prejudice any decision on applications made for Whitegates.

But Redrow argued that Swallow Drive was not a substantial development, would not have a major impact on the area and could not have any effect on future plans for the neighbouring land.

l Whether planning permission could be given without any details of affordable housing, density of housing, allocation of public open spaces or landscaping provided by Redrow.

Mr Sauvain said the information was not given because Redrow had been asked to provide an outline application only - and that conditions could be applied to make sure they were included at a later date.

However, Mr Crean told the inquiry that information such as landscaping and access routes was vital in deciding what impact the development would have. Mr Sauvain said the company's outline application had seemed in line with the city council's policy when it was put forward in 1997.

He said: "They allocated the land for housing and appeared at the UDP inquiry to defend that and agreed it was appropriate. On that basis it did not seem to me that the city council had resigned support for the development of the site in principle..

But Mr Crean said Pool had already suffered from a short-sighted planning policy, which had been criticised by the UDP inspector.

Pool residents and parish councillors, including Couns Ailsa Bearpark and Judy Davey, were planning to make their own representations against the appeal during the inquiry, which was due to end yesterday.

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