SIR – In reply to Councillor David Tibbutt (August 21), my original letter did not debate the need for a flood defence. I am sure even the dimmest of observers would applaud the basic premise of installing a defence. My point was that again our unimaginative council seem to have spent our hard-earned cash on what promises to be an unsuitable product.

The flood defence we all hoped for was one that would impact solely on the flooding for a brief period of the year.

However, the one procured is one that primarily impacts negatively on the only attractive and accessible viewpoint seen when entering the city.

For 365 days of the year it will represent an eyesore of a monument to what once was there and on only the odd occasion save us from flooding.

I can’t help wondering if Councillor Tibbutt’s cross-party committee was the same dynamic collective that gave our city a single lane western bypass? Or perhaps chose to locate the new river footbridge in an unsuitable location?

A removable barrier that slotted into place would have been more aesthetically pleasing and not as environmentally destructive. It too would not have cost as much as the civil engineering project that is currently taking place. And we would not have to have lost the trees.

GARY CLARKE,

Worcester