SIR - My objection to the closure of the Pitchcroft park is two-fold. It is not that the racecourse is to be protected from incursion during race-days, I've no problem with that and never have had.
But I object to the fact that the chosen method of protection has the effect of banning citizens access to our park. It is cheap, simple, and tramples on citizens' rights.
The walkways adjacent to Barbourne/Stephenson Road area are well away from the racecourse, which I agree should be cordoned off from the public at these times.
Perhaps there could be other security measures which would not infringe upon the right of the public to use the park for leisure activities, for which we pay taxes.
My second objection is that the council didn't close it, the racecourse company - Arena Leisure - did. The council - apart, I assume, from Derek Prodger, councillor and Arena Leisure board member - seemed unaware of the closure.
Either that or it was aware but considered it to be unnecessary to inform the public in advance, or to post its own notices on the barred gates indicating that the action had council approval. Not bothering would be dereliction of its duty. So, which is it?
Bob Jones, Worcester
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article