To be blunt, no. Which isn't to say that I don't understand why some people would welcome the opening up of one of the access points Michael highlighted. There are families in the street who have children at Eliot Bank School (indeed our son was originally due to go there) so I am aware that a cut through may offer some improvement to certain journeys. That said, those with kids at Eliot Bank and wooden fences bordering the path from London Road to Derby Hill Crescent haven't felt it necessary to install their own gate so it cant be that big a deal.

Forestholme Close is a cul-de-sac in its purest, non-permeable form in that it is a dead-end to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. That feature has its benefits and also attracts some criticism but that is how the street exists at present. My objection to opening up the wall is based on a number of reasons (in no particular order):

1. The street is relatively diverse but is largely a 'family street' and as such kids play out in the street on a daily basis. The nature of the street means this is pretty safe as there is only one way in or out of the street by car or foot. Some parents are happy to let their kids out with no supervision but the majority of us are out there with them. That said, we're able to give them relative freedom without having to be right on top of them the whole time. Opening the wall would completely change that amenity.
2. The street has a strong community feel, we have a fledgeling kids' allotment patch, communal green space and you know 90% of the people you see in the street. This adds to the sense of belonging and ability for us all to look out for each other and spot anything out of the ordinary.
3. Changing the dynamic of the permeability of the street will alter the tranquillity of it. I can speak personally - but also know that a large number of my neighbours highly value how peaceful the street is - that a major factor in choosing to buy our house was that it was in a quiet cul de sac with no through access (having suffered 5 years in a flat on a noisy, long, busy street used as a cut through and next to an alleyway).
4. The pathway mentioned earlier suffers from the various levels of 'antisocial behaviour' that you'd expect from a such a route - graffiti, litter, meetings for various illicit purposes, etc - which would undoubtedly spill on to the street if the wall was opened up. Local police have told us on a few occasions that the pathway is often used as an escape route following criminal activity all around it (including Taymount Rise and its various offshoots - via Forestholme Close and over the wall).
5. I'd question quite how much benefit opening up one of the access points would actually provide. And I've made journeys by foot with my own two young kids to all the possible destinations mentioned.
   

We're very aware that we're extremely lucky to live in what is effectively a cul-de-sac off a cul-de-sac but we made the choice to live there for a reason. Providing the amenity of an access route removes a bunch of amenities that are already enjoyed.

So there you go, more than my two-penn'th but you did ask.