I HAVE read an article (Times, December 18) relating to the dispute that has arisen concerning the redirecting of a footpath. The footpath in question connects the rear of Leeze Park to Castle Road. The need for this change is to allow the development of this site, and to acquire detailed planning consent.
At first glance it appears to be a case of ?the greedy developer? disrupting the Leeze Park residents. There is a great play on the access for disabled persons, the elderly, cyclists and ease of access for those pushing prams etc. It would appear that these rights of access would be lost by the redirection, causing inconvenience to those above who wish to use the path.
On closer examination it can be seen that the current path is a steep gradient unkempt dirt track. This path is rutted with numerous holes and depressions. The path is very uneven and water eroded, and slippery with mud and leaves. This path then exits onto Castle Road and is not visible to the motorists using Castle Road. The blind spot into which the path exits is an accident waiting to happen. The path in its current state is of such poor quality it poses a risk to anyone who wishes to use it.
A redirected path with a proper surface and handrails would be a large improvement on what is being used currently. Even if the redirection needed steps it would still be far more accessible.
The arguments about the accesses are poor, and I invite anyone to walk the path and call it safe for disabled persons and the elderly. The path would be very hard to navigate with pushchairs and being so narrow cyclists pose a real danger to the groups highlighted.
The desire to redirect the path for the development should be seen as an opportunity to have a usable path to accommodate the needs of those who use it. The proposals will not add any significant distance.
I find it hard to understand how a path in such a state of disrepair can be defended so vehemently when the proposed path would be of a far higher standard.
Nathan Feaver
Station Road
Okehampton