Sir – In response to Ralph Ingham-Johnson’s letter (Gazette, July 17), may we suggest his test drive over the “crossover” (Farmer’s bridge) was perhaps a little scientifically lightweight.

Following the four-week public inquiry last year, the inspector wrote a report rejecting the Cogges Link Road. Below are quotes from his overall conclusion:

  • 7.112 On traffic .....there is little to choose between the CLR and the SGSR (Shores Green.
  • 7.113 ...while the CLR would remove traffic from the Bridge Street area, it would not remove it from the town centre.....and would result in issues of severance and Station Lane east overcapacity.
  • 7.114 On balance, however, the issues of value for money and severance weigh heavily against the CLR.....on traffic grounds, the SGSR would be a better scheme than the CLR.
  • 7.115 In terms of landscape, the CLR would have a significant adverse impact on the sensitive Windrush valley.....
  • 7.116 ....the CLR would occupy part of the country park which enjoys a sense of openness and some views across the flat river valley....
  • 7.117 ....On noise grounds, therefore, the SGSR would be a better scheme than the CLR
  • 7.118 ....the SGSR would be a better scheme, in terms of biodiversity, than the CLR
  • 7.119 The CLR would generally result in better air quality than the SGSR
  • 7.120 The issue of flooding....The SGSR would therefore represent an appropriate alternative, in a lower flood risk zone, to the CLR, and the CLR would thus fail the sequential test.
  • 7.121 .....As the CLR has failed the sequential test, however, the SGSR, on flood risk grounds, would be a better scheme than the CLR.
  • 7.122 The SGSR would achieve the aims of the CLR on practical and policy grounds.

We rest our case.

David Condon, Witney CPRE