Sir – I refer to Duncan Enright's letter on July 12.  I very much live in the present and was merely pointing out that while Mr Enright was in Iffley, he may just have overlooked that 2,000 houses or more in Witney were given planning consent and have since been built over the last 20 years or so, on the clear understanding (via conditions and section 106 agreements) that specific infrastructure would be delivered to relieve the town and its long-suffering residents of some of its traffic misery.
While the inspector may have reached his decision for reasons best known to him, the fact remains that the people of Witney have been badly let down — they were promised a relief road funded by development and now there is no guarantee of anything being built as there may be not be enough funding — without the further release of yet more land for new houses and yet more cars. Brilliant.
Frankly, the result is a travesty and completely undermines the people's confidence in the planning system.
How does Mr Enright suggest this can be put right quickly and why did he not advocate the Shores Green junction solution years ago? Do I detect a bandwagon...?
Can you imagine if the above had all happened in Iffley — the residents would have been baying for Duncan's blood.
The answer is that it was the county's highways department — not the politicians of any hue — that had been advising their county councillors that Cogges Link was the best solution and their planners had negotiated most of the funding — it may not have been perfect but it was deliverable.
Yours in another jam
 

Harry St John
North Leigh