At the risk of being accused of attacking the man and not the ball, I must take issue with Ian Kell's eulogy of the experts (Letters, June 20, 'Time to accept experts' view'9).

Although Mr Kell as usual argues his case well, an over-reliance on "experts" is not a guarantee of success.

The claim of a net extra 3,500 trees is a target that has meaning only for future grandchildren: we are asked to sacrifice the aesthetic value of today's trees in favour of a stone/concrete edifice.

And the attack upon anyone who does not slavishly tow the EA line and who proposes alternative resolution as somehow having "closed minds" is unwarranted.

Mr Kell appears to exhibit split loyalties: as one of the most vociferous objectors to the district council's recent replacement of the New Road car park at Kendal with a small area of greenery, he now envisages safe through-town cycle ways and footpaths in direct proximity on Aynam Road as a favourable bi-product of the new defences. He should at least be consistent.

Mr Peter Hordijon