SIR: I am disappointed to see that Hyde Street has been singled out as the source of all Winchester’s traffic problems. It seems to me that the main problem for Roman roads such as Hyde Street, Jewry Street, North Walls and Chesil Street is that the piecemeal development over the centuries has led to roadways of varying width alongside stretches of dangerously narrow pavement. In places the pavements are barely wide enough for a pushchair or guide dog, late alone an accompanied adult.

St Bartholomew Ward is one of the most deprived wards in the city largely due to the vulnerable groups who live along Hyde Street, and its residents ought be able to walk as safely as anyone else to and from their homes. If the street was to be reopened then the pavements must be widened and other safety measures put in place, such a metal posts as in other ancient European cities, to make it safe for pedestrians.

Our Council has been awarded a grant, and come up with a thoughtful scheme that will help make our city safer, healthier, cleaner and a desirable destination for our struggling businesses. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water!

Dr Anne Russell,

Hyde Street,

Hyde

SIR: Whilst the resistance to the continuing and proposed permanent closure of Hyde Street gathers pace we perhaps fail to understand the other mainly cycling led changes that are proposed in this warped experimental view of what Winchester should look like for the future.

The madness of King George comes to mind when considering the proposed cycling contraflows along some of the narrowest side streets in the city centre which will lead to the loss safe walking space in these streets for pedestrians, a question of the safety of the scheme for drivers and cyclists alike and whether there will be continuation of on street parking in these streets if the safety aspect is to be seriously considered.

This whole ‘Active Travel Fund’ is an experiment which Hampshire County Council (HCC) coupled with the City Council (WCC) have leapt at due to it being ‘free’ Government money on offer to implement a trend. The problem being that the residents of Winchester and the villagers and road users to the north and east of the City will have to live with the consequences if these idiotic proposals are implemented for the years to come.

I recall the last experiment that HCC and WCC were involved with – the 20 mph speed reduction ‘experiments’ in various locations and in which the WCC could not wait to add to, unnecessarily so, with the claim that there would be an improvement to the ‘quality of life’. A measure of the ‘quality of life’ prior to implementation was never established and HCC have yet to produce a report to assess the improvement in the ‘quality of life’. What we all know is that it didn’t improve anything and so was a total waste of money but the speed limit will never be restored to the original.

These two local Authorities are now to launch into a yet another so called ‘experiment’ which will only lead to cyclists thinking that they can ride anywhere without fear of the Law and will only lead to the total loss of the High Street as a totally pedestrian haven as the Police have zero interest in implementing the Law with regard to cyclists and but ‘throw’ the book at any motorist who comes into contact with a cyclist as it’s assumed automatically to be the motorist’s fault every time.

The proposals for change in the ‘Active Travel Fund’ should be opposed by all residents of Winchester and the surrounding villages for the farce that they are and perhaps the funds could be used for a more beneficial purpose, the repair the roads of Hampshire which are falling apart and getting worse by the day.

Tony Stephens,

The Pastures,

Kings Worthy

SIR: We sympathise with our friend Bill Hoade in wanting to lessen the traffic past his house in Worthy Lane. But we would ask for some reciprocal understanding of the fears of those of us in Hyde Street who fear a return to the past: a narrow thoroughfare (much narrower than Worthy Lane) in which our lives were blighted by constant traffic — from motorbikes to huge lorries — attempting to cut short their journey.

As is clear from Professor Nigel Wood’s letter (Chronicle, February 25), the residents of Hyde Street — including those in retirement flats and social housing — vastly outnumber those in the short row of houses along just one side of Worthy Lane. That is without counting Marston Gate, for whose residents Hyde Street is their sole road exit. It is surely unfair that their views should count for less.

We gather that the petition from Bill and Steve Harbourne was a 38 Degrees online campaign, which anyone, anywhere can sign. More convincing would have been something put through our local letter boxes.

The reality is that reopening Hyde Street would not help Worthy Lane. Nor, for that matter, would it ease congestion in North Walls if traffic were again to filter in from Hyde Street. Until its closure, Hyde Street was an anomaly in Hyde: now it can join the rest of Hyde — Arthur Road, Nuns Road, Monks Road, Egbert Road and so on — as an oasis of tranquillity.

If there were an easy solution for the Worthy Lane residents, it would have been taken. Perhaps adjusting the traffic-light nightmare of the Andover Road/City Road crossroads would help. But the real need is to lessen our city’s dependence on the car (made worse by housing developments). That will demand imagination and determination from our council. Lovely villages in France ban access to cars “sauf riverains” — except for residents. Meanwhile, if cities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Bath and Bristol, or Seville, Frankfurt and Valletta can prioritise the pedestrian, why not Winchester?

John Andrews and Hilary Thomas,

Hyde House Gardens,

Hyde Street,

Hyde

SIR: The closure of Hyde Street to North Walls has had the very unfortunate effect of pitting one set of close neighbours (Worthy Lane) against another (Hyde Street). The heart of the problem is that, for historical reasons, both roads serve a dual purpose as both arterial roads into the centre and as residential streets. The current experiment preserves Hyde Street as residential but has doubled up the capacity of Worthy Lane in its arterial capacity. One can understand why the Worthies are upset.

Is there a solution? Actually, I believe there is if the Council is prepared to pursue boldly and radically the logic of its ambitions.

Very conveniently there is the entrance to the Cattle Market car park at the north end of Worthy Lane. By taking a roadway across the car park so that it debouches (as a T-junction) into the Andover Road (roughly opposite to the Esso service station) it would enable both

Hyde Street and Worthy Lane to enjoy their residential status, relieve them of their arterial function and also give a controlled entrance into Andover Road. Very conveniently there is already a traffic light just north of where this junction would be. This would not add to the volume of traffic in the Andover Road merely move the access point fifty yards north - and create a proper control rather than the push-and-shove currently at the Worthy Lane junction.

Not a perfect solution, maybe. But perfection is impossible given the lie of the land and the existing road system.

Edward Fennell,

Egbert Road,

Hyde