Sir, – I should like to comment on Sylvia Jacob's letter (The Herald February 17). Having no allegiance to any political party, I do not consider it to be appropriate to criticise any councillor who chooses to place personal conscience and integrity above party loyalty. It would appear that the Liberal Democrat party has so totally embraced the East Street project that they have completely forgotten the promises they made in April 2003. Here are some of the specific points the Lib Dems promised: "What the East Street scheme should not be about – Four-storey high buildings 300-plus new homes (far too many) Too many new offices and shops Over-development that changes Farnham's character The loss of current facilities Before anything happens there must be independent environmental and retail studies to decide what the town can accommodate. Community needs put first, not profit" After three years of Lib Dem administration, the current scheme proposes that 25 per cent of the buildings will be of four storeys. The proposal is for 294 new homes. When it comes to overdevelopment and change to Farnham's character, the independent South East Regional Design Panel advised Waverley that the design contained a fundamental preference for introducing monolithic large footprint blocks and buildings which contrasts wholly with the established scale and grain of the town. There will be 118 fewer public car-parking spaces to service the existing retail and businesses operating in Farnham. There is no planned increase in public car parking provision for the additional retail and office accommodation included in the scheme. Instead of a two-screen 400-seat cinema, the plan is now for an eight-screen 1,200-seat cinema with no allowance at all for the necessary additional car parking. There has been no independent environmental study. There has been no independent retail study to determine what the town can accommodate. That profit rather than community needs dominates the East Street project decisions was spelt out April 19, 2004, when WBC councillors met CNS to determine the content of the NOP survey questionnaire. On that occasion, one lone councillor put forward his view "that the public should be aware that the scale of the development is driven by financial obligations – and the fact is the higher the density the more money is available to WBC". He lost his argument – the profit issue has never been made public. The true question raised by Sylvia Jacobs is whether the Lib Dem party has adhered to its 2003 manifesto commitments or whether the bulk of the Lib Dems have abandoned their electoral promises, whilst those that have opted to become independent have remained constant to their electoral undertakings. Cross-party co-operation on East Street is all very well, but attempts to silence informed debate by extolling the virtues of cross-party predetermination of the outcome of a crucial planning matter – regardless of its manifest defects – is unacceptable in a democratic society. B G Davey, Frith End, Bordon