I WRITE following M R Jackson's letter in regard to the Northern bypass route (Citizen, last week).

Often in the past I've found this correspondent's style of writing abrasive and over-reliant on assertions that I suspect are not always supported by the facts. On this occasion I know this to be true.

Ignoring his silly claim re small amphibians, he says the Western route somehow requires less 'cut and fill' than the Northern alternative. Total nonsense. Either he knows nothing of the proposed Western route or he is being deliberately dishonest.

That now rightly abandoned route would have involved some 60 or 70 per cent being elevated, bridged or in cuttings. It would have blighted a beautiful and, significantly, accessible piece of local countryside.

I have no opinion on the Northern route as yet because I do not know much about it but Mr Jackson would serve debate on it far better by at least trying to stick to the truth.

Otherwise it might be assumed he just doesn't like it because of how much closer it is to his own back yard.

P J Speight, Lancaster.