IMPLICATIONS made by Alan Harrison of the A435 Studley Western Bypass Action Group need to be answered.

l Option 2 is not the same as the original preferred route for the Studley bypass. Unlike the original preferred route, Option 2 is at grade for much of its length and has more roundabouts and so is even more detrimental than the original route.

l It is implied the Studley bypass, which replaces the A435 (now classified as a ''virtually de-trunked non-core route'') is still on the Government's agenda.

This is doubtful as ''the DETR London has indicated that the Highways Agency will not deliver'' (1) the old scheme and that, as far as any new scheme is concerned ''the Government expects it to be taken forward as part of Warwickshire CC's Local Transport Plan''. (2)

Therefore some, perhaps a significant amount, of the borrowing costs of this extremely expensive scheme will have to be met by the county council, a fact confirmed by Warwickshire CC. (3) Is this possible in the light of local government finances?

l The implication the ''ongoing efforts'' of those supporting Option 3a resulted in the further consideration of this option throws doubt on the professional integrity of the county council's consultants.

Was Halcrow Fox's professional opinion that ''both Option 2 and 3a perform well against most criteria'' and that ''further assessments are required before the comparative merits of Option 2 and Option 3a can be fully assessed'' (4) really be influenced by outside agencies?

l It is implied Option 2 can be delivered more quickly than Option 3a. Why is this when both will need a detailed design phase, when CPOs need to be issued for both routes and when both options will need a public inquiry?

l The implication that it is wrong to object to Option 2 and to support Option 3a must be challenged. Option 3a offers a valid alternative to Option 2. Both options will damage the ecology but recent assessments have proved that Option 3a is cheaper, gives good traffic relief and, unlike Option 2, is well away from housing.

Supporters of Option 2, who want a bypass to get rid of the noisy traffic close to them, seem to expect other quiet and virtually traffic-free residential communities to welcome this unwanted traffic without a murmur.

Surely it's better to take this unwanted traffic away from all local communities. Option 3a does just this, particularly if it is modified at its northern end. So why do people support Option 2?

Denny Hutton

Sambourne Parish Council's bypass representative

Oak Tree Lane

Sambourne

(1) Warwickshire CC letter 06/02/01

(2) GOWM letter 28/03/01

(3) Report Stratford Herald 26/04/01

(4) Halcrow Fox Final Report: Conclusions