WITH REFERENCE to the article regarding the Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme and Allerton Bywater, the information published is incorrect and unhelpful.
A key part of this scheme, which will prevent devastating river floods in the city, is to mitigate any increased risk elsewhere. An assessment of flood risk has been undertaken by a specialist hydrological engineering consultancy which shows that Allerton Bywater will not be affected by the scheme. This assessment has been verified by the Environment Agency and is in the public domain.
At Woodlesford, as a result of the Leeds scheme, there is a 40mm increase in water level in a one in 200 year flood event. Therefore, mitigation measures are included and works have recently commenced on site and will be completed prior to the city centre works. This will provide residents and businesses in Woodlesford with a level of protection and reassurance they have never had before.
The impact on water levels continues to diminish moving further downstream of Woodlesford. The flood assessment demonstrates that there is no impact to water levels at Allerton Bywater and therefore no increased flood risk at this location. The scheme is of huge importance for the city, providing a defence against the significant physical and economic damage that results from flooding.
It is about protecting key infrastructure, regeneration and supporting future growth. When considering the Government’s plans to cut funding, which would see miles of flood defences abandoned, it is clear the council and its partners have done an excellent job in securing the necessary funding for the scheme in Leeds. The recent flooding in the south of country and its impact reinforces the importance of flood alleviation schemes and I think we should all recognise how well we have done as an authority to be at the stage of starting work on our own.
Coun Richard Lewis, Ward Member for Pudsey & Executive Member for Development & Economy, Leeds Civic Hall
Ask the cyclists what they think
Hats off to Vernon Wood for making the effort to check that Leeds Council are correct in planning vast expense on a cycleway. I am not a cyclist and would like to see bike riders on designated routes as congestion in the city does make it difficult for drivers and riders alike. Perhaps the council should invite people like Vernon to look at plans proposed before spending.
I use the Sheepscar Interchange daily and can tell you 90% of cyclists do not use the lanes provided. Why? We have a cycle route in Meanwood that cuts across Carr Manor field and very rare do you see a bike rider on there. Why? The same path cuts through Carr Manor woods and has a short incline so steep Bradley Wiggins would find it difficult to get up to the top. Again, following the route to Moortown (Homebase) very rare to see a bike. Why?
Before the council waste more money they claim to not have perhaps people with experience of cycling around the city should be consulted before going ahead. It seems from Vernon’s survey we are not the next generation of Von Trapps so let’s spend the money wisely.
Chris Dobson, by email
Avoid gyratory and its lanes
I AM not surprised that your correspondent Vernon Woods (Letters, February 17) counted few cyclists at his poorly chosen locations. I live in West Leeds and when I cycle into the city centre I deliberately avoid the Wellington Road bridge section because that involves navigating the Armley gyratory which has sections of four lanes of weaving traffic. To use this road I would have to cross four and then two lanes of fast traffic to get onto Tong Road. Better to use Whitehall Road or go along Armley Town Street.
Stephen Clark, Bawn Approach
Safer roads key to cycling rise
WHAT A ridiculous survey conducted by Vernon Wood (YEP, February 17). He chooses locations on two of the busiest dual carriageways into the city centre to determine that nobody cycles. Of course they don’t there - it’s too dangerous! They will change their route to other safer alternatives. The marked increase in the number of cyclists on Kirkstall Road following the recent provision of bus/cycle lanes, shows that if we make the roads safer for cyclists, then they will use them.
GRAHAM SMITH, Horsforth
Too dangerous for new riders
AS A cyclist and a motorist I disagree with your correspondent who regards the new cycle way as a waste of money. To take a census now seems rather naive since a dedicated cycle way would encourage people who do not cycle to take up the sport.
I would not suggest that anyone new to cycling should take it up on Leeds’ roads as it is far too dangerous and there are a lack of cycle ways. Also it is unfortunate that there are many aggressive drivers out there who seem to resent cyclists. There are some cyclists who give us all a bad name weaving along paths etc. but they are a minority.
I can only assume R Kimble was joking recently in suggesting a white line, half a metre wide from the kerb for cyclists. In fact a white line of any width is no protection. It is a cheap option which can be a danger, since any vehicle can cross it and actually do.
V TURNER, by email
Won’t budge over research
SO, JAYNE Dawson uses a piece of “research” to claim that men are stubborn (YEP, February 19). What learned piece of academic study has she based her article on? The Marxist-Feminist Collective Against Patriarchy perhaps? A local University Sociology Department?
No. Her source is Costa Bingo. I won’t be losing any of my lazy, stubborn sleep in the afternoon after 10 pints of Guinness for lunch over these findings, then.
R KIMBLE, by email
Trolleybus hit by a lot of wind
IN HER letter of February 18, Miss P Johnson of Beeston wonders how the trolleybus wires would have coped with the gales on February 12. If one refers to what happened in Arnhem last October, the answer is probably not very well. The wind made the overhead wires sway back and forth, leading to considerable delays on all lines. Finally a wire snapped in a main thoroughfare, which then had to be closed off for the afternoon (source: Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau ANP, October 28, 2013).
CHRISTOPHER TODD, by email
Threat to city’s green spaces
I REFER to your article (YEP, February 13) regarding the government inspector’s approval of Leeds Core Strategy which includes the building of 70,000 homes in the next 15 years. Like many others I am incensed at the pressure from government and developers to build so many new houses in Leeds and it is pathetic how our councillors seem unable to stand up for us as most of us know quite well that these figures are inflated. I have recently met 13 Leeds councillors and have asked them all if they know anyone who cannot find a house to buy in Leeds and none could reply.
We are the ones that live in Leeds and we are the ones that pay our council taxes. Yet a minority of Leeds councillors and an outside government inspector is deciding our fate.
All this new build is encroaching on some of our most beautiful green belt destroying the wildlife and ecology so important to preserve for our children and grandchildren.
CAROL LEE, Cookridge