Pro-20’s Plenty

I suppose I should thank the Worthing Herald for putting 20’s Plenty on the front page again, but given the importance of making Worthing’s residential streets safer for everyone, especially our children, it would be helpful if you could ensure that your articles are at least factually accurate and inform your readers.

Firstly, you misrepresent the costs. The Worthing County Local Committee (CLC) voted to go to public consultation on ‘Option 2’. If the consultation is positive, council officers estimate implementation of this would cost up to £300,000 (not ‘upwards of £350,000’ as your reporter Oli Poole wrote).

It would also be helpful if you explained to your readers that this money would not come from taxpayers, it would come from Transport Section 106 funds which Worthing Borough Council currently holds. This is money obtained from property developers to be used solely for transport schemes. These funds are typically used to improve road safety and promote more sustainable transport – exactly what 20’s Plenty aims to do.

In fact, a 20’s Plenty scheme would be expected to save tax-payers money. Fewer deaths and injuries on Worthing’s roads for the police, fire, ambulance and NHS to deal with.

Finally, it would have been nice if your article had told your readers how many people had voted. I understand the ‘droves of readers’ actually amounted to a total of 170 votes. By contrast the 20’s Plenty campaign has over 1,200 signatures of support.

If any readers want to support 20’s Plenty campaign – visit our website at www.20splentyforworthing.org.uk and sign the petition.

Duncan Kay

Boundary Road

Worthing

Editor’s note: The Herald has checked the figures with the CLC, and members agreed the cost of the scheme would be upwards of £350,000 inclusive of the consultation.