AFTER reading the reply by Mr Sydney Maslin (January 8) regarding the footpath at the rear of Leeze Park and Castle Road, it is apparent that there is some confusion relating to this matter.
Firstly I am flattered, but I am not the developer, nor do I have any financial commitment to the site. My interest is personal, and so being I have nothing to gain from the proposed development.
I am happy to confirm that I am not a pensioner, but that does not mean that I am unable to evaluate the dangers for pensioners. The nature of the site is clearly not suitable as a safe path for those people who have mobility problems, and the majority of these persons are pensioners.
I agree that there have been no accidents on this path to date, but the fact that none have happened so far does not automatically translate that there will be no such accident in the future. The hazards are obvious and the lack of injury thus far is by no means a benchmark for the future.
The position that Mr Maslin put forward was that he would like a new surface, but, if not, leave the path as it is. This will not deal with the issue, just continue with the same problems.
The comment that a new path would have equal or even greater risk than the existing path is incorrect and exposes the lack of understanding relating to the entire matter. The site after development would be cleared of vegetation and scrub. The area where the new path would intersect Castle Road would be open and clear, allowing pedestrians and motorists to have a clear view of the area. This would increase the safety of this intersection, and certainly would be a vast improvement.
As to the curve in Castle Road becoming a new substantial hazard, this again will be displaced with greater visibility to all parties.
Finally, I use the path quite frequently; whether I need to or not is irrelevant. The problems are obvious and the hazards undeniable.
The objections that are being raised quite simply are not able to justify the opposition to the redirection. There has never been any wish to remove this path. The claim that the gradient will be doubled is again an assumption driven by the lack of understanding of the proposals.
The matter has now been handed over to the planning authorities, where I hope a sensible and rational decision can be reached, based on the site and the factual properties within.
If the objections that have surfaced so far are the focus of this disgruntled opinion, I suggest that dialogue be opened with the developer (not me) and see if there is any compromise that can be found.
In my experience dialogue in these matters often results in a solution. I will be interested to see how these matters unfold, and I sincerely hope that a resolution that all parties involved find acceptable will be found, and the focus can shift from conflict into more constructive negotiation.
Nathan Feaver
Station Road
Okehampton