Sir, Tim King and friends suggest that those who wish to save the Trap Grounds from development represent a small minority of local residents (Letters, June 16). Since there has been no statistically sound investigation of opinion in the locality, this view is completely unsubstantiated. There are strong feelings on both sides of the question, but we simply don't know where majority opinion lies. As to the suggestion that it is outsiders who support the campaign to save the Trap Grounds: support has indeed come from the Open Spaces Society because the case was of national importance, but it is locals who raised the bulk of the £50,000 necessary to win the legal case. The signatories to the letter are concerned that parts of the Trap Grounds are inaccessible in summer because overgrown. They would be most welcome to join the parties of locals who are going out this week to clear the worst affected areas. Such parties form regularly to keep the area open and the leaders of those parties then lead groups to observe the wildlife. The signatories also repeat the allegation that the present access to Phil and Jim is dangerous. Any road which is used by cars, as well as pedestrians, cyclists, and scooters, is to some extent dangerous. In this sense Aristotle Lane is dangerous, as would be a new road over the Trap Grounds. But, unlike on most roads, no recorded accident has occurred on Aristotle Lane. By what logic then do the signatories claim it is so dangerous that it must be replaced by a new road?

Rather than campaigning for an expensive and damaging new road, we prefer to encourage the Phil and Jim children who arrive on foot, by bike, and by scooter and commend the school for cutting car use so effectively and the highway planners for their work in constantly improving safety of the existing access road.

Liz Baigent, Hugh Series, Louise and Robert Gullifer, Charlotte Brewer, Chris Goodall, Kim Polgreen, Neil Ferguson, Oxford