SIR,

In response to Jeremy Cowen's letter in your October 6th edition, on behalf of my committee we would strongly comment that Mr Cowen's letter was full of generalised rhetoric and accusation with no truth and substance.

No mention whatsoever of severe road safety issues detailed in Tidenham Parish Council's well thought out and very factual 19 point refusal to accept the Sustrans proposals, one major item was the £40,000 cost to the parish council.

That decision was supported by 84 per cent of residents surrounding the Lanes and Railpath area, surveyed during the 14 days before that council vote.

Mr Cowen has also failed to inform readers that Sustrans has no earned cash flow and in consequence are unable to sign an enforceable Section 106 Agreement with the Local Authorities for continuing pathway and tunnel repairs covering a length of over 6km plus maintenance, power supply, landslide clearance and many other items that are likely to cost Gloucestershire County Council between £150,000 and £200,000 per year.

With council employees being made redundant at Gloucestershire and Forest of Dean councils, libraries being closed, rubbish collections being restricted etc, compliance to the Sustrans 'hope' would be an insult to those employees losing their jobs, and also to you as a taxpayer.

All this money intending to be spent in these difficult times on a minor non-essential recreational proposal to benefit an estimated 31,000 cyclists and others (Sustrans Planning 2008 estimate) mainly non-spending, out of area visitors.

Perhaps the many fervent uninformed supporters purportedly totalling it is variously claimed between 200 and 1,000 letter writers, most of whom live outside Gloucestershire, writing in support of the Sutrans proposals will help.

What Jeremy Cowen does not tell his cycling, letter writing supporters are the inherent dangers of all of the lanes that Sustrans intend to use and that these lanes are considered too narrow, with dangerous blind bends.

Worst of all is the cost of maintaining Tidenham and Tintern Tunnels and the inherent danger of unexpected stones falling from the curved ceiling, stones that are capable of maiming or worse.

Sustrans' solution is to re-point the many bricks that are loose, completely failing to appreciate and ignoring the fact that surface pointing will not safely hold a failing bedded brick in position. No solution is offered for the major areas of bare rock surface.

The biggest problem is that the original recorded cause of the tunnel's closure by British Rail in 1959 states, that it was considered to be unsafe for rail traffic due to the unacceptable falls of ceiling bricks in Tintern Tunnel and that it would be too costly to make safe.

The existing falls are the proof of that decision and the hidden dangers lurking for the proposed users.

We urge any caring cycleway letter writers to withdraw their support by writing to [email protected]">[email protected] P1626/10/FUL and also to [email protected]">[email protected] DC/2010/00783.

Michael M Gordon

(Spokesperson and legal advisor for The Action Committee for the Protection of the Lower Wye Valley)