Sir, – It is a travesty of the truth for Ian Mullins to suggest that the Redgrave is a "priceless people's possession". Had it been of benefit to the many, rather than merely to the selfish few, it would have been financially viable, still in operation, and never a drain on taxpayers' pockets.

Whatever may have been the motivation at the time, the first act of vandalism against Brightwells was indeed the building of the Redgrave. It is always more difficult to argue for the preservation of a semivandalised building than one that is still whole. Far from

preserving Brightwells, the Redgrave may well prove to be the cause of its death.

Captain Burden is quite correct in his assertion that Brightwells and the Redgrave are entirely separate issues. It is perfectly possible to conceive of schemes which preserve Brightwells while demolishing the Redgrave – and vice versa. He is also technically correct that the site would be more valuable if there were to be fewer restrictions placed on its use. However this is true for any asset.

Poppy's pony paddock would be worth several millions if building were permitted on it and only a few thousands if it were not. Captain Burden's argument could be used to

justify the de-listing of any building whatsoever. If it were so used, there would be no point in listing any buildings in the first place!

Brightwells was built for

living in. The best way of preserving it is to return it to its proper function. I would

suggest that converting it into an old people's home is the most sensible modern use for it.

Michael Boon

Morley Road, Farnham