Newbury man
Sir: Charles Clover's article about the New- bury bypass (Prepare to be appalled', 30 September) is so crammed with errors and misconceptions that it is hard to know where to begin any reply.
Mr Clover writes: 'Newbury already has a bypass, built in the 1960s on the edge of the town.' In fact, the road which he describes as a 'bypass' passes within 50 yards of the Granary building, which marks the site of the old Wharf, around which the town of Newbury grew during the period of the wool trade. Fifty yards from the centre does not — and never did — mark the edge of the town, as a number of owners of town centre houses, demolished to make way for this 'bypass', know to their cost. Like many similar environmental issues, the Newbury bypass is all a question of the balance of environmental benefit. For example, the bypass is expected to remove up to two-thirds of the traffic from the Newtown straight, where it crosses New- town Common. Since the traffic removed will be the juggernauts, while the remain- ing traffic will mainly be smaller cars, the proportion of the noise and atmospheric pollution removed is expected to be much more than two-thirds.
The benefits to the nightjar site on New- town Common, when the bypass has been completed, will clearly be very consider- able. Sadly, articles like Mr Clover's, which mention the disadvantages to the nightjars at Snelsmore Common but ignore the ben- efits to those on Newtown Common, serve only to mislead rather than to enlighten the reader.
I recently joined a walk along the line of the bypass organised by the protesters. About 40-50 people completed at least a part of the walk, mainly, it seemed, Lon- doners. It was fascinating to watch their surprise as they heard me explain the envi- ronmental benefits which the bypass will bring. It was immediately clear that they had been persuaded to come on the walk because, until then, they had only heard of the disadvantages.
The Newbury bypass will undoubtedly cause environmental damage to the lovely countryside to the west of Newbury. However, those who recently saw the model of the bypass, which was put on public display in central Newbury, were all forced to admit that the protesters had largely destroyed their own case by their gross exaggeration of the disadvantages.
Many environmentalists, myself includ- ed, have come to this issue seeing the dis- advantages and believing that there must be a better solution. But those of us who have really investigated the issue in depth have almost all been led to the conclusion, however regretfully, that this is a case in which the environmental benefits of building the bypass outweigh the disad- vantages.
David Rendel MP
House of Commons, London SW1
Previous page
