Infrastructure is already stretched , and heritage has to be preserved
D
D Howard
10 years ago
Smoke from burning cables and plastic hazardous to nearby houses.
P
Paula Reynard
10 years ago
The infrastructure in Colton already struggles to support existing residents and business.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
No
C
Charlotte Gilbert
10 years ago
Strongly object to this - totally unsuitable for this area.
J
Julie kaye
10 years ago
Do not want more traffic and I want to preserve wildlife and local history
P
Paul Eamonson
10 years ago
East leeds is becoming more and more congested at longer periods during the day and particularly school times. We need to stem the use of green belt land by misnaming it brown belt as it is a precious commodity not to be used for building purposes or travellers sites. There are lots of areas in Leeds centre to demolish old mills etc and build affordable housing in the place it is needed. Why demolish victorian terraces. why not offer them for a small purchase price to first time buyers to "do up" themselves. Just consider d.i.y.SOS! Lets get it right and stop the rot!
J
Joanne horton
10 years ago
I Say no !!!
J
Jon Bentley
10 years ago
Absolute madness by LCC
S
Sharon Fell
10 years ago
There are already huge pressures on local amenities schools, doctors, parking, traffic congestion without adding even more housing and a traveller site - build on brownfield sites where school places are readily available
G
graham cuthbertson
10 years ago
We have enough houses in the area, soon all surrounding villages will be linked and merged in to one. Who would want a Gypsy site near them !
C
Cerise Booth
10 years ago
There are many brownfield sites for building on , there is no reason to use green belt . I must misunderstand ? But doesn't a gypsy / traveller do just that ? Settlers should pay rent , council tax and bills same as the rest of us !
E
Emily
10 years ago
we do not have the resources to clean up after travellers who disrespect our areas.
I
Iain Stead
10 years ago
Gypsys are members of a travelling people therefore houses are irrelevant.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
This area doesn't need anymore chaos on an already hazardous and dangerous road.The development of houses and traveller site on the hedge of Temple Newsam park is totally unacceptable as it will have a devastating affect on the wild life and spoilin the natural beauty of the park. I object to the councils proposel for this area as we have enough with Thorpe Park and the shops .
N
Norman Robinson
10 years ago
The Gypsy site is too close to existing private & commercial properties. Personal experience suggests that crime rates rise in such circumstances and the environment suffers from excessive tipping. The current infrastructure in Colton will not support another tranche of housebuilding of this magnitude. I know we will be accused of "nimbyism", but the majority of objectors have the interests of their locality at heart; after all I suspect the planners and council officials responsible for the proposed developments are in no way affected by these proposals!
J
John Wray
10 years ago
Travellers, as the name implies, prefer to travel the country. It is their choice, we should not be required to pay for a permanent site. They should be expected to either rent or buy a property if they want permanency.
D
dean coulson
10 years ago
Green belt land must be preserved for future generations
C
Christopher Hick
10 years ago
Strongly object!
P
Philip Steel
10 years ago
Further development on the edge of historic parkland is totally inappropriate.
Infrastructure is already stretched , and heritage has to be preserved
Smoke from burning cables and plastic hazardous to nearby houses.
The infrastructure in Colton already struggles to support existing residents and business.
No
Strongly object to this - totally unsuitable for this area.
Do not want more traffic and I want to preserve wildlife and local history
East leeds is becoming more and more congested at longer periods during the day and particularly school times. We need to stem the use of green belt land by misnaming it brown belt as it is a precious commodity not to be used for building purposes or travellers sites. There are lots of areas in Leeds centre to demolish old mills etc and build affordable housing in the place it is needed. Why demolish victorian terraces. why not offer them for a small purchase price to first time buyers to "do up" themselves. Just consider d.i.y.SOS! Lets get it right and stop the rot!
I Say no !!!
Absolute madness by LCC
There are already huge pressures on local amenities schools, doctors, parking, traffic congestion without adding even more housing and a traveller site - build on brownfield sites where school places are readily available
We have enough houses in the area, soon all surrounding villages will be linked and merged in to one. Who would want a Gypsy site near them !
There are many brownfield sites for building on , there is no reason to use green belt . I must misunderstand ? But doesn't a gypsy / traveller do just that ? Settlers should pay rent , council tax and bills same as the rest of us !
we do not have the resources to clean up after travellers who disrespect our areas.
Gypsys are members of a travelling people therefore houses are irrelevant.
This area doesn't need anymore chaos on an already hazardous and dangerous road.The development of houses and traveller site on the hedge of Temple Newsam park is totally unacceptable as it will have a devastating affect on the wild life and spoilin the natural beauty of the park. I object to the councils proposel for this area as we have enough with Thorpe Park and the shops .
The Gypsy site is too close to existing private & commercial properties. Personal experience suggests that crime rates rise in such circumstances and the environment suffers from excessive tipping. The current infrastructure in Colton will not support another tranche of housebuilding of this magnitude. I know we will be accused of "nimbyism", but the majority of objectors have the interests of their locality at heart; after all I suspect the planners and council officials responsible for the proposed developments are in no way affected by these proposals!
Travellers, as the name implies, prefer to travel the country. It is their choice, we should not be required to pay for a permanent site. They should be expected to either rent or buy a property if they want permanency.
Green belt land must be preserved for future generations
Strongly object!
Further development on the edge of historic parkland is totally inappropriate.