THE Echo article ‘Future uncertain for the air festival’ (June, 29) spawned conflicting views on the letters’ page (July 1&6).

Yet what went unmentioned was the statement of Conservative Cllr Broadhead who defended the festival stating an “independent analysis shows that this event brings circa £59 million to the local economy”.

I fear such analysis provides a poor assessment on two fundamental grounds.

Firstly, the methodology used remains unclear while previous descriptions of such analyses have been greatly deficient.

For instance, are we assuming the seafront will be entirely empty without the air festival?

At the height of the season?

And secondly, why should we spend money promoting the height of the season when this also results in greater poverty through the off-season?

In past discussion of the festival’s future, the idea of off-setting the carbon footprint of the event has been mooted.

An assessment of 65 tons carbon from the performing aircraft was made.

This was a nominal value as getting the aircraft to/from Bournemouth would engender a far greater carbon footprint, as would getting the audience to the clifftop.

Yet it has been noted that the creation of a hectare of woodland for every staging of the festival would off-set that nominal carbon footprint.

Others went further and suggested a hectare of solar farm rather than woodland would be a better approach.

And if the economic benefit of staging the festival were anything like £59 million, that would be surely a no-brainer.

DR MARTIN RODGER

Bloxworth Road, Parkstone