• REGARDING the letter (No more cycle paths, February 15) from the chair of the Heath & Hampstead Society, Marc Hutchinson, I would like to add the following remarks.

First, while he is correct in stating that there are four cycle paths at present on the Heath, he is incorrect in thinking they are suitable for recreational cycling.

They don’t link up, so there is no way of arriving at Gospel Oak or Hampstead Heath station, doing a recreational ride on the Heath, and returning as you arrived.

The Camden Cycling Campaign has been suggesting better links to both stations for some time – without result. But even with better links to the stations, there would still be no circuit that could be cycled with children or inexperienced adults without using Highgate West Hill, which is very busy.

Secondly, the same cycling campaign suggested creating a leisure circuit by allowing cycling on the path that skirts south of Kenwood woodland, joining the track which gives access to the Ladies’ swimming pond, and using Millfield Lane for a short section, returning via the existing cycling-permitted path towards the Hampstead ponds.

This idea was proposed years ago in response to a consultation – also without result. The commonly used reason for rejecting cycling-permitted paths is the threat to safety posed by fast, commuter cyclists.

We believe the circuit suggested would be of no use to commuters but would provide a much-needed recreational cycling route. Perhaps the time has finally come for the Heath & (Old) Hampstead Society to reconsider its hitherto implacable opposition?

JAMES BRANDER
Hadley Street, NW1