Consultation over cycle path

I write to ask your readers to look very closely at the information that will be on display during the public consultation on the proposed cycling path through the length of the South Pond area.

The consultation has been arranged at short notice in the Grange on Friday, February 4 from 3pm to 7pm.

When I first heard of this path I was in favour, since cycling is such a good form of exercise, but when I discovered the changes it involves in South Pond and when I thought about who might use it, I concluded that I could not agree with it, at least not until the adjoining parts of the pathway are in place.

The current proposal makes the stretch through South Pond the first part of a pathway joining the cycle way to Chichester with Cowdray Park where it ends, a terminus that I suggest only handfuls of people would actually use.

If the adjoining areas are put in place first, including a pelican crossing of New Road near the fire station, we would have a better idea of the numbers who would use it before we inflict considerable changes on South Pond, a much-loved place in our community as it now is.

We do not know the financial cost of the project but it is bound to be in the high six figures, not least because it involves replacing the iconic wooden bridge with a four-metre wide construction to allow cyclists to share with pedestrians, toddlers and buggies.

From New Road, along

the Jubilee Path, an approximately three-metre wide path will be created, incurring the removal of several select trees and plants.

Beyond the bridge to the Old Chichester Road the path continues through the space where there are benches for people to contemplate the pond and stand to feed the ducks and geese; a mix that seems to raise some concern for the safety of the pedestrians and how much the cyclists will disturb them merely by passing through.

The path also involves a new pelican crossing of New Road next to the fire station, a less than ideal site for such a crossing.

Advocates suggest that the path would be popular with

cyclists, but they provide no evidence. One suggestion has been that families with children would like it, but their numbers must be quite small and, in any case, they can use the Jubilee Path as it is.

People are used to stepping aside for small children on their mini-bikes. The changes would have to encourage many more pupils at Midhurst Rother College to use it than do at present, yet many of them will think they would ride faster to school, and less hampered by pedestrians, if they simply use the main road.

Teenage riders looking for a challenging ride would go three minutes away to the paths in the woods of Midhurst Common.

The lycra brigade of cyclists would never use it, so it is not easy to discern large enough numbers to make the huge expense worthwhile.

I must add that although I am known as a long-standing member of the South Pond group my views are my own and by writing this letter I do not represent the group.

DR ANDREW SUTTON

Elmleigh Midhurst