DUE to the amount of uninformed comment regarding Tidenham Parish Council's (TPC) objections to the Sustrans planning application for a combined cycle track/footpath from Sedbury (not Chepstow) and Tintern/Brockweir, TPC feels that residents of Tidenham Parish should be made aware of the reasons behind their council's decision to object to the application. The full list of objections may be viewed on the parish web site by looking at the draft minutes of the planning committee meeting held on September 22.
The lack of parking facilities at the Sedbury end of the path is of real concern as there is virtually no public parking within the village and indiscriminate parking on both the narrow local lanes with path access and the roads of Sedbury, many of which are used by large farm vehicles, will cause disruption and danger to local residents. As Tintern is a tourist destination it is likely that the majority of visitors will start in Sedbury and visit Tintern/Brockweir, thus the parking problems in Sedbury will be exacerbated.
Stress is made by Sustrans of the path being "inclusive" and providing a leisure facility for walkers, cyclists, horse riders, and the less able – is this mix of users safe when one considers the narrow tunnels and the relatively steep gradient? If the path is made suitable for mechanised chairs for the less able will youngsters on the mini-motorcycles (already a danger on the roads of the area and a cause of antisocial behaviour) also use the pathway?
If the path is constructed, with the capital costs being funded by Sustrans using funds from the lottery, what will the consequences be should they then walk away from future maintenance – as stated by them in a previous application? It will doubtless become the responsibility of the Parish Council to fund the on-going maintenance, which is estimated by Sustrans at some £40K per annum (or £8,000 per kilometre per year). Would the residents of Tidenham Parish be happy to have their Council Tax increased by 40 per cent to cover these costs.
Additional questions include whether a hard pressed police force can deal with antisocial behaviour in the area, who will pay for general litter clearance on the path and for dog foul bins to be installed and then be emptied weekly? Public toilet facilities are non-existent at the Sedbury end of the path with the closest being in Chepstow which is a fair distance to travel once leaving the path (particularly for the children); the nearest hospitals with accident and emergency departments are in either Gloucester or Newport again a distance away.
While proposals for safe exercise are to be applauded and supported the current proposal leaves too many vital questions unanswered and problems unsolved. Sustrans talks about the benefits to the local economy in Tidenham and specifically in Sedbury. While the path may benefit the economies of both Tintern and Chepstow, due to Sedbury being a start point not a destination and with the lack of general facilities within Sedbury, the path will not bring economic benefits to Tidenham Parish or Sedbury in particular.
Of the 1,155 people supporting the cycle path, as detailed on the Wye Valley Cycling web site as on October 3, only 183 appear to be from the Parish, and how many will prove to be active users – 5 per cent?
The Parish Council, in considering the application, needed to consider the long term physical, environmental and financial effects on the residents of the Parish and has no responsibility towards people appearing to support the concept but living so many miles away that their visits will be few and far between – if ever for those London based. – Clerk to Tidenham Parish Council.