SIR - Once again Ivan Waterman has thrown another tantrum, this time because the Pen Ponds car park is to be truncated.

He writes in his letter (March 12) that this particular spot is one of the most picturesque in the UK. It could be, if its appearance wasn't scarred by the car park and pathway. Personally, I would like to see them grassed over and trees planted in the vicinity.

But the Royal Parks Agency has made the decision that there should be space made available for 90 cars, which should be reserved for the fabled little old ladies and little children, whose parents are so bereft of energy that they can't push a pram for a couple of miles.

Mr Waterman paints a picture of some kind of pastoral paradise, whereas the reality, from my observations over many weekends, was a scene from a Buschian nightmare with motorists, passengers and dogs spewing out from a car park that is an engorging mass of vehicles. He doesn't seem to realise that Richmond Park has been designated a site of scientific interest and a national nature reserve. There has to be a balance between visitors coming to Pen Ponds and preservation of the flora and fauna. That is the problem that Mr Waterman's bete noire, Simon Richards, has been trying to resolve.

Going by his previous correspondence, one single word is continually churning over in his febrile mind. That word is gridlock'. It is the instigator of all his outbursts.

Gridlock is what will occur in the roads surrounding Richmond Park if the car park at Pen Ponds is reduced in capacity and Robin Hood Gate remains closed.

I can't understand why most visitors to the park can't use public transport. Buses pass the park and Richmond is served by a railway station connected to the major lines.

Of course, Mr Waterman would never contemplate using such a mode of transport. He is obsessed with the motor car. He is one of those people who thinks he has the God-given right to drive where he likes, when he likes and at whatever speed he chooses to, mowing down anything that gets in his path - road humps are one of his pet hates.

Soon the speed limit in Richmond Park will be reduced to 20 mph and no doubt we shall be subjected to another outburst from him.

A H Howard, Pyrland Road, Richmond SIR - I have been asked if Torben Petersen exists. Or is he just an artful ruse that Richmond Park's anti-through-traffic campaigners dreamt up to write a few foolish things to the local press now and then? He does exist.

A few years ago, he wrote a stream of letters to the newspapers denouncing any proposed restrictions on the park's growing traffic volumes.

And since, he claimed, he saw no-one on foot for most of the time when he was driving in the park, there was no need for road closures, and he demanded that the Royal Parks Agency set up a survey to do people-spotting.

That idea was thwarted by the high cost of issuing hundreds of pairs of binoculars.

In any case, judging by the number of people out and about when Mr P was behind the wheel, especially on Sundays, it was clear that he rarely averted his gaze from the car in front.

He would also say how anxious he was about global warming, and his way of tackling it was to drive through the park a number of times each day and encourage others to do likewise. He still speaks of his deep concern for the park and the need to protect it for future generations, and shows it by writing to the local papers to criticise anyone who seeks to do so.

Four years ago, Mr P was elected onto the Friends' committee. I remember asking him, after yet another of his anti-park, pro-traffic flurries, what he was doing in the Friends of Richmond Park, since he agreed with little of the constitution. He didn't know. In his latest letter, he has quoted one of the aims, which is "to keep the roads of the park out of the highway system".

"This means," he says, "they are opposed to the use of Richmond Park by through-traffic." If he had realised that before he joined, he might have changed his mind.

Mr P's absence of empathy with pedestrians subjected to air pollution, noise, traffic eyesore and health risk from speeding in-coming vehicles to the park would have made him better suited as spokesman for the AA or RAC.

Instead, he was the local contact for, of all things, the Pedestrians' Association!

Now he informs us categorically that motor traffic does not harm Richmond Park, in spite of growing evidence indicating otherwise.

But then, even if all 486 of its ancient oaks keeled over tomorrow, dosed up to their mycorrhizal zones with enough metals to build another of his beloved automobiles, Mr P wouldn't notice a thing.

He would still be gazing straight ahead at the car in front.

John Repsch, Clifford Avenue, Mortlake SIR - I found Ivan Waterman's reference to the current superintendent of Richmond Park as Park Kaiser' Simon Richards to be offensive (March 12).

Mr Waterman is clearly one of those who are against any restraints on traffic in the park and who respond to the efforts to afford the park some protection by attacking the Royal Parks Agency's staff, who are civil servants carrying out their work. In other words, if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger!

Name calling such as this does nothing to convince me that the agency isn't doing a good job. In fact, it makes me think the antis' are abusive and irrational.

Your printing of the phrase in your editorial as Quote of the week' was most unbecoming for a newspaper of such high integrity and is more in line with what is expected from sensationalist tabloids.

Jonathan Fray, Cowper Road, Kingston