That's a big NO to both projects. We really don't need any more congestion in this area.
E
Ella Obaldo
10 years ago
A big NO to these two proposed projects it will create more traffic towards the ring roads and it will destroy our precious Green Belt land.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
The green belt area on colton lane is totally unsuitable as it could not deal with the additional traffic from an extra 165 houses, already traffic backs up at peck time and it is difficult getting out of colton road east at both ends even now.
Schooling would also be an issue as the junior school is already over-subscribed.
Regrading the sites on Bullerthorpe Lane again traffic would be a major issue and why build on green belt when there is brown field sites not being used.
K
Kevin Spivey
10 years ago
No to the traveller site here
M
Michael Cowan
10 years ago
Its green belt land, leave it alone, plenty of brownfield sites available. The road structure in this area cannot sustain more and more building. one bus out of Colton and one lane traffic down Selby road, and also into Crossgates.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
I have only been living in the area for 2 years and love it, however, to build 165 houses plus a gypsy traveller site, I'd be putting my house up for sale before this affects my massive mortgage and we end up losing money. The area itself and the lovely surroundings is one of the main reasons people love living here and this would take that away. Schools are hard enough to get into as it is without building more houses. I really do hope this doesn't happen as it really will destroy the lovely area. We need to look after what we have.
A
ANDREW NEVINS
10 years ago
To put a gyspy site next to a private housing estate where people have big mortgages would a major effect on house prices ,would you buy a house with a gypys site at the back ? And to build another 165 houses in colton is going add more problems to the already over congested area ,there has been a ten fold increase in traffic on colton lane since 2002 as per (LCC figures)
P
Patricia Crowther
10 years ago
These sites were identified for inclusion in the SAP based on some glaringly incorrect information during assessment. I urge those responsible to see that these mistakes are corrected before any planning decision is taken. These sites are not as described. They are Green Belt and are unique amenities. With sufficient brownfield sites available to provide the kind of affordable starter homes that are most urgently needed in Leeds, there can be no justification for building homes here that will attract premium prices instead. The SAP describes the traveller site as unsuitable for housing. Policy states that Traveller sites should also not be allowed on land deemed unsuitable for housing
P
Patricia Crowther
10 years ago
These sites were identified for inclusion in the SAP based on some glaringly incorrect information during assessment. I urge those responsible to see that these mistakes are corrected before any planning decision is taken. These sites are not as described. They are Green Belt and are unique amenities. With sufficient brownfield sites available to provide the kind of affordable starter homes that are most urgently needed in Leeds, there can be no justification for building homes here that will attract premium prices instead. The SAP describes the traveller site as unsuitable for housing. Policy states that Traveller sites should also not be allowed on land deemed unsuitable for housing
P
PAMELA HANDLEY
10 years ago
There are so many occasions when getting in and out of the Colton estate is difficult at best that applying further pressure on the road infrastructure is intolerable. The traveller's site should not be located upon historic parkland. Leeds has little enough remaining of this important heritage as it is.
N
Nicola Farley
10 years ago
I am totally opposed to any building on Green Belt land and the placing of a Gypsy Traveller Site on the land on Bullerthorpe Land. I have lodged my objections on the Leeds City Council website this morning and hope this makes a difference.
R
Richard Hannan
10 years ago
I am against the plans for building on green belt area in Colton. The damage to the habitat and further strain on infrastructure is not acceptable.
J
Johnathan Lloyd
10 years ago
I object to these plans based on building on green belt land and the already over used road system causing safety issues.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
Objection to further traffic in already over populated area . Resources not able to cope already schools roads parking . Furthermore objections to 4. Sites for gypsies as local residents entitled as paying council tax payers to have their say and be heard . It's our community and most people making these decisions don't live here . With all due respect
P
Paul Morris
10 years ago
Featured
Notwithstanding the adverse impact on already stretched local infrastructure, any development which impinges on the Temple Newsam estate would severely diminish the amenity of a much-used and much-loved recreational facility for the people of East Leeds.
M
Mark Mcgovern
10 years ago
We dont need anymore pressure on the schools in our area.
J
John Casey
10 years ago
The local infrastructure, such the roads around colton are already congested. The school is already over subscribed. This plan will have significant impact on an already stretched area
J
John Hall
10 years ago
We do not wish this development to happen due to lack of intrastate, schools, road links, green belt, ecology and historic site.
Why ? Green belt land is precious .
That's a big NO to both projects. We really don't need any more congestion in this area.
A big NO to these two proposed projects it will create more traffic towards the ring roads and it will destroy our precious Green Belt land.
The green belt area on colton lane is totally unsuitable as it could not deal with the additional traffic from an extra 165 houses, already traffic backs up at peck time and it is difficult getting out of colton road east at both ends even now. Schooling would also be an issue as the junior school is already over-subscribed. Regrading the sites on Bullerthorpe Lane again traffic would be a major issue and why build on green belt when there is brown field sites not being used.
No to the traveller site here
Its green belt land, leave it alone, plenty of brownfield sites available. The road structure in this area cannot sustain more and more building. one bus out of Colton and one lane traffic down Selby road, and also into Crossgates.
I have only been living in the area for 2 years and love it, however, to build 165 houses plus a gypsy traveller site, I'd be putting my house up for sale before this affects my massive mortgage and we end up losing money. The area itself and the lovely surroundings is one of the main reasons people love living here and this would take that away. Schools are hard enough to get into as it is without building more houses. I really do hope this doesn't happen as it really will destroy the lovely area. We need to look after what we have.
To put a gyspy site next to a private housing estate where people have big mortgages would a major effect on house prices ,would you buy a house with a gypys site at the back ? And to build another 165 houses in colton is going add more problems to the already over congested area ,there has been a ten fold increase in traffic on colton lane since 2002 as per (LCC figures)
These sites were identified for inclusion in the SAP based on some glaringly incorrect information during assessment. I urge those responsible to see that these mistakes are corrected before any planning decision is taken. These sites are not as described. They are Green Belt and are unique amenities. With sufficient brownfield sites available to provide the kind of affordable starter homes that are most urgently needed in Leeds, there can be no justification for building homes here that will attract premium prices instead. The SAP describes the traveller site as unsuitable for housing. Policy states that Traveller sites should also not be allowed on land deemed unsuitable for housing
These sites were identified for inclusion in the SAP based on some glaringly incorrect information during assessment. I urge those responsible to see that these mistakes are corrected before any planning decision is taken. These sites are not as described. They are Green Belt and are unique amenities. With sufficient brownfield sites available to provide the kind of affordable starter homes that are most urgently needed in Leeds, there can be no justification for building homes here that will attract premium prices instead. The SAP describes the traveller site as unsuitable for housing. Policy states that Traveller sites should also not be allowed on land deemed unsuitable for housing
There are so many occasions when getting in and out of the Colton estate is difficult at best that applying further pressure on the road infrastructure is intolerable. The traveller's site should not be located upon historic parkland. Leeds has little enough remaining of this important heritage as it is.
I am totally opposed to any building on Green Belt land and the placing of a Gypsy Traveller Site on the land on Bullerthorpe Land. I have lodged my objections on the Leeds City Council website this morning and hope this makes a difference.
I am against the plans for building on green belt area in Colton. The damage to the habitat and further strain on infrastructure is not acceptable.
I object to these plans based on building on green belt land and the already over used road system causing safety issues.
Objection to further traffic in already over populated area . Resources not able to cope already schools roads parking . Furthermore objections to 4. Sites for gypsies as local residents entitled as paying council tax payers to have their say and be heard . It's our community and most people making these decisions don't live here . With all due respect
Notwithstanding the adverse impact on already stretched local infrastructure, any development which impinges on the Temple Newsam estate would severely diminish the amenity of a much-used and much-loved recreational facility for the people of East Leeds.
We dont need anymore pressure on the schools in our area.
The local infrastructure, such the roads around colton are already congested. The school is already over subscribed. This plan will have significant impact on an already stretched area
We do not wish this development to happen due to lack of intrastate, schools, road links, green belt, ecology and historic site.
We need to protect the local wildlife