Further to the letter in the Herald & Post (October 9) disagreeing with Mr Quick’s suggestion, I feel bound to state that I support Mr Quick’s suggestion — certainly more than simply “bunging up” housing. While some argue for additional town centre housing, I believe Farnham would be far better served by creating a landscaped space at the Woolmead site which everyone could genuinely enjoy.

That is not to say that housing must be ruled out entirely. If the Woolmead is to be developed, then it should be done in a balanced way, with fewer homes and without resorting to dense blocks of flats. Cramming large numbers of people, whether single occupants or families, into such a confined area at the heart of the town is neither healthy nor sustainable. Town living needs breathing space, proper infrastructure, and design that respects Farnham’s historic setting.

We should also remember that flats are already being built on the Swain and Jones showroom site. It makes no sense to impose yet more high-density living at the Woolmead, particularly when earlier plans resembled sardines packed in a tin. Brightwells, at least, has the advantage of offering a degree of space and openness — something the Woolmead should aspire to.

Quick solutions may suit those who do not live in Farnham, but for residents this is too important to rush. A landscaped area, or at the very least a careful mix of green space with lower-density housing, would provide a healthier and more sustainable balance for the town and its community.

Let us get this one right.

Alison Fitch

Farnham

In your article ‘No unity over unitaries at East Hampshire District Council’, there was demonstrable bias towards a single political party, as well as a misleading description of the ruling group of the council. There was also a failure to acknowledge that other political groups and independent councillors at the authority took part in the debate and vote on Local Government Reform at the council meeting on September 25.

The article provides six quotes from Liberal Democrat councillors and a single quote from the leader of the council. There were no quotes from Green or Independent councillors, who spoke during the debate, nor from the Labour councillor (though absent from the meeting, his position could have been sought). I understand their views were not pursued in order to provide balance and fairness in reporting.

Furthermore, the article, whilst lamenting that “they could not even achieve a consensus within their own authority”, infers that 12 other authorities in Hampshire were united in their proposals on Local Government Reform. This is simply inaccurate. Of those 12 (Gosport did not participate at all), the Isle of Wight voted against the proposals and submitted nothing to Government, and the remaining eleven put forward three different proposals. That is hardly a consensus.

It is also worth pointing out that, in voting against the LGR proposals and offering no alternative, those members have also voted against supporting the detailed plans on Neighbourhood Empowerment which would allow local communities greater influence over certain services in their area. This includes the imminent establishment of Local Area Committees in parts of East Hampshire as a trial to test how such empowerment could work. It should be noted that none of the proposals submitted by “the other 11” authorities contained any such detail on Neighbourhood Empowerment.

I trust you will take steps to correct the imbalance in the reporting of LGR so that your readership can be better informed on what is, after all, a complex and important matter.

Cllr Jamie Matthews

Member for Petersfield Bell Hill

East Hampshire District Council

David Lloyd, writing in the Herald and Post (September 25), appears to value a good old-fashioned “rant” as a way of getting things off his chest. However, he also has a responsibility to maintain a greater degree of accuracy in his comments.

In September 2024, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government confirmed that “90 per cent of social lets are allocated to UK nationals, with the remainder allocated to EEA, Swiss and Irish nationals, or to migrants in severe housing need.”

In addition, the Ministry stated that “migrants arriving in the UK on student or work visas, as well as those arriving illegally with no leave to remain, will be ineligible for any allocation of social housing.”

Mr Lloyd also cited examples from overseas. More than 300 South Koreans were indeed recently detained in a raid on a Hyundai plant in the US state of Georgia, many of them alleged to have been employed on expired visas. These individuals were returned to South Korea on a government-chartered Korean Air jet. The extradition flight was delayed for more than 24 hours on instructions from the White House, President Trump reportedly pausing proceedings to check whether any of the workers were willing to stay on in the US to help train Americans.

Finally, Mr Lloyd questioned the correct name of the Union Jack. A cursory check of reliable sources would have informed him that both “Union Jack” and “Union Flag” have long been accepted usage to describe the national flag of the United Kingdom. The notion that the term “Union Jack” properly refers only to naval usage was dismissed by the Flag Institute in 2013 following a detailed historical review.

David Barton

Petersfield

Don’t write Sir Keir Starmer off. Just as the right-wing tabloids were busy writing him off, and parts of the media were in a leadership frenzy, up stood the Prime Minister to deliver a speech that exposed Reform UK for what they truly stand for. At the same time, he set out Labour’s achievements to date and his own vision for the future.

Whether it be green jobs, free school meals for children, or a fairer deal for carers, this was the vision of a Prime Minister hungry for further success — and for the chance to continue making Britain great again.

Geoffrey Brooking

Saxley Court

Havant