MADAM,

Reasons for Monmouth Planning Committee’s “negativity” to Rachel Jupp’s presentation to alter Chippenham for the convenience of a few are clear.

She ignores the history of the Mead, and the legal regulations that govern it.

Relevant objections have been lodged with the authorities, but just what are these “hard working” Friends of Chippenham Mead (FoCM) achieving?

The majority of the lights on footpath No. 273 do not work, the park furniture is rotting, free-running dogs pose a greater risk to her children than an occasional traffic fume, (the present playground was illegally fenced in the 1990s to exclude dogs) and there is more illegal parking on the green than ever before.

Suitable sites away from the protected Chippenham are suggested, as who wants large family people-carriers cluttering up their neighbourhood? The promised flower garden to replace the historic playground is fanciful unless the FoCMs undertake to plant, maintain and finance this refuge themselves while monitoring Chippenhams’s whole 47.559 acres at all pub-chucking-out times.

Kirstie Buckland

(Monmouth)