IN February you published my letter proposing the use of the disused rail track as a cycle way from Cirencester to Kemble Station (Standard February 4).

Since that time I have received considerable support for the idea from many people including members of the Cirencester Town Council (CTC) and the Cotswold District Council (CDC).

There has also been a chance for a response to the Bathurst Development Ltd. Planning Statement of January 2016. Bathurst Development Ltd. (BDL) elected in their Planning Statement that ‘Access to be considered in detail at this stage’ (Para 1.5).

I contend in their Parameter Plans and Access Plans (Technical Reports para 1.9) that they have not considered all possible access to the site by omitting mention of the potential link to Kemble Station via the disused railway track.

Specifically, they state that: ‘The Transport Assessment also provides plans, as listed below, for various offsite road, cycle and footpath improvements required to mitigate the impact of the development on the local road network and improve connectivity of the site to the wider area.’

In their Transport Assessment (para 5.97) they contend that ‘the site has appropriate accessibility to a range of destinations and facilities by a choice of travel mode and the site is sustainable in transport terms.

Future residents and employees at the proposed development have the opportunity to access a range of destinations by a choice of suitable transport modes’.

That they are fully aware of the disused railway line is proved in Para 2.6.

It should therefore have been at least considered as a possible connection since it lies in part in the Bathurst Estate land holding. Coincidentally, CDC have just published their draft Local Plan Reg. 18: Planning Policies which makes specific reference to the ‘provision, enhancement and promotion of safe and legible connections to existing walking, cycling and public transport networks (including, where appropriate, the rail network)’ (Para 4.52).

Previously, CDC published a Cotswold Cycling Strategy 2003 which refers to planning guidance concerning access and transport connections, with specific mention in the Strategy of the ‘Use and protection of former railway lines’.

I do not believe that, without any consideration of the use of the disused railway track as a cycle way from the proposed development to Kemble Station, the intention of any of these requirements and statements have been met as BDL claim in their Planning Statement.

In the light of this, and considering only ‘Access’ matters, the Conclusion (para 7.21) of the Statement ‘that the submitted travel plan sets out a range of measures to encourage modal shift to noncar modes’ is accurate but deeply flawed.

Given the considerable evidence presented by BDL and in view of CDC’s own planning guidance it is apparent: a) that BDL have not considered the use of the disused railway track in spite of many indicators that they should have done so, and b) that, given the present submission is concerned with ‘Access’, they should now do so.

TIM CHARSLEY

Cirencester