The ground on which it is proposed to build the east of Otley development is low-lying and largely flat. During heavy rain, much of it becomes waterlogged - by rain falling directly on it and because the ditches are filled by drainage from the A660 Leeds Road and by run-off from the north face of the Chevin.

There are fields where water stands on the surface and remains there over large areas for much of the winter, finally draining away and drying up only after prolonged spells of dry weather. One particularly boggy field, partially under water now and shown as marsh at the area labelled 'Intakes' on an Ordnance Survey map of 1851, is in the middle of the proposed development. Some other fields are of made up ground and unsuitable for building on.

At present, this ground will initially absorb heavy rain and release water only slowly as it seeps into the various drainage ditches, whence it finds its way into the River Wharfe, via Main Dike and Holbeck, opposite Caley Lodge entrance on Pool Road.

The fact that it is accessed by 'Ings Lane' speaks for itself as much of the area is low-lying meadowland by a river. It acts as a sponge which receives water, by reverse flow in its drainage ditches from the river Wharfe when it is in spate, thus limiting its rate of rise during heavy rain and alleviating flood risk further downstream.

The roads serving the new buildings will have to be drained and so will the roofs, driveways and parking areas of the buildings themselves. With high density development, these will amount to a considerable proportion of the total land area.

Rainwater soakaways will not be appropriate since they would only increase the saturation of the ground. So drainage will have to be into sewers or storm drains exiting ultimately into the River Wharfe.

The upshot will be that, during rain storms, high rate run-off will be immediate and the river level will rise sooner and faster, thus increasing the risk of flooding further downstream.

Building here would be like building on a flood plain - one of the acknowledged causes of the very damaging flooding which has occurred in recent years. It appears that the plan to build on this low ground to the east of Otley disregards the likely consequence of increasing the risk of flood damage to property downriver.

There must be higher ground nearer to Leeds city centre which would be more suitable.

Finally, whilst on the subject of drainage, much of the area will be too boggy to be suitable for use as domestic garden ground.

Cambridge Street, which is very narrow and, of necessity, normally has residents' cars parked on both sides in front of the terraced houses towards the town end, is the shortest direct access route to the town centre.

It is just about adequate for the through traffic to and from the present Cambridge Estate, for which it is the principal access route.

So the new building will require additional, preferably alternative, access. East Busk Lane, leading to Pool Road, might take some of the traffic - if widened - but it seems that any major access points will have to be on to the proposed new bypass.

If so, that leads immediately to a conflict of interest with its use as a bypass for the town. The present bypass has no side turnings at all between its roundabouts at either end and provides free and unobstructed traffic flow.

Will it be appropriate to have side turnings to domestic and industrial estates on the new extension to the original bypass? Might they be perceived as a traffic hazard and would this be acceptable to the Department of the Environment?

What proportion of the heavy vehicle traffic along Pool Road is actually through traffic and how much of it is for legitimate access to business premises in Otley?

It is only through traffic which might be diverted along the new bypass - and it already has an adequate route, only about one mile longer, via the junction of the A658 and the A660 at the traffic lights on Pool Bank.

Now that the Dyneley Arms public house there has been closed as a result of severe fire damage, would not the better option be to improve the A658/A660 junction rather than build a new road?

This would surely be less costly than building the new bypass and would not need the building and quarrying developments to pay for it! Might it not, in fact, be funded by central government as a trunk road improvement rather than by Leeds?

Whatever traffic solution (or even none) is adopted, as traffic there increases year on year, it has become increasingly important to protect the residential and farm accesses to the Leeds Road (A660) by a speed limit as some of them are very steep and some are on or near curves giving restricted visibility.

Residents have many anxious moments and it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident.

This new speed limit, perhaps 40 mph, needs to extend about one mile eastward from the roundabout at the easterly end of the present bypass.

There are smaller sites within the present town envelope which are ripe for development (or redevelopment).

Developing these would increase the efficiency of land use near the town centre and allow Otley to retain its identity as a small market town.

The impact of hundreds of new houses, increasing the town's population by probably two to three thousand people (about 20 per cent?) will completely change the balance of the community.

Is there a real local demand for new housing this side of Leeds or is this merely a Leeds overspill? If it is, its 'affordable' housing will probably be occupied by city people who would rather live somewhere else - perhaps closer to Leeds centre and its amenities.

If, as has been demanded by an Otley town councillor, 75 per cent of the housing is to be 'affordable' for first time buyers, this would sow the seeds for creating, in years to come, a ghetto locality similar to certain no-go areas within the city of Leeds.

It would be unacceptable for Leeds to export its law and order problems to little Otley, which has virtually no police presence and does not even have a full-time police station.

Should not Leeds redevelop its own brownfield sites before encroaching on greenfield sites in the countryside far away from the city centre?

As the majority of the new bread-winners will have to commute to Leeds for their employment, will not hundreds of new houses in Otley merely increase still further the peak-time traffic along the already congested A660 Leeds Road?

The buses already run full and car traffic is continuous from 7.30am to 9am and again in the late afternoon.

It has been said that we might end up with as many as 800 new houses and these might generate some four hundred children: say three hundred of school age or an average of 30 per age group - constituting one additional class for each year.

The nearest school, at Lisker Drive, is already being extended to accommodate the extra pupils resulting from the closure, only last year, of other schools in Otley - and will be too short of space, even when the building is completed, to be able to absorb next year all of the present children from this year's nursery class.

If Leeds needs to house more people, it should do so where it has the spare capacity in existing schools and not where it has short-sightedly reduced the number of available places and sold off school buildings. Is this 'planning'?

Doctors and Dentists are fully subscribed.

Wharfedale Hospital, already downsized, will be further reduced in capacity when rebuilt.

Do the plans for the development include a comprehensive clinic or health centre?

The offer, by developers, of funds to provide a bypass looks suspiciously like a sop to sway, in their favour, a planning decision in direct contravention of established green belt policy.

It nevertheless leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Local Government decisions ought not to be tainted by any suspicion that they might be influenced by the offer of corporate 'bribes' - otherwise where will it end?

How can the council control the development when its authority is compromised by its being indebted to the developer?