Sir, – I discovered Farnham on being posted to RAF Odiham around 1957, was delighted by what I saw, and settled here 40 years ago. I well understand the need for change and improvement if, as observed by the Venetian architect, San Sovino, a town is to continue to satisfy and delight its inhabitants, and to surprise its visitors. But such change and improvement must only be done with good taste – with style: a quality defined by Durrell as "the cut of the mind". Therefore, it grieves me as a co-founder of Castle Street Residents' Association, intended to preserve its beauty by encouraging our residents to cherish their duty of care for such a treasure, that profit-seekers intend replacing parts of our town with massive, graceless structures in and around East Street. Meanwhile councillors either ignorantly refuse to listen to the protests of the majority of people who live here – or is it that they are silent because the poor souls simply do not know how to get out of a mess of their own making? I do not understand how a council is able to get away with such behaviour in local affairs. Does it think residents of Farnham are weak and gutless, prone to whingeing about interference with our town, while actively doing nothing to prevent it? Does it really interpret the silent apathy on the part of some as signifying general assent to what is to be done to our town? Whose town is it anyway? – not the council's, for many of its members are not even from Farnham – which gives them less moral justification to speak for us than those who live here. Farnham exists as a source of income for other parts of Surrey. Is that why our protests are ignored? We need to raise and take back our town. Would it were possible, say, to have the able-bodied saw it off and physically push it away from Waverley, into Hampshire, where it properly belongs, then we might be getting somewhere. The development of East Street is gross for a town like ours, as the proposed buildings are out of scale, unsympathetic, and lend no grace to the town. How many times has this to be said without shouting – or maybe even ducking a handful of the interlopers and their councillor toadies in the River Wey? Farnham has excellent resident architects, whose track-records already demonstrate understanding of and sensitivity to the town's, reeds, without damaging the outlook from Brightwells – a Grade II listed building – or the "green-lung", or the bowling green – where the bowls club has been given notice to get out. The reason why decent restructuring of Farnham cannot be put into the hands of such architects – it is said – is that money has already changed hands, and it will cost Waverley too much to undo the damage proposed for our town! The town should not have to lose 118 public parking spaces, when the development will generate more intensive traffic to clog further our streets that have become rat-runs. Youngsters need play areas, but where will they be provided, if at all? The repeated success of the theatre in a tent, which always seems to be well attended, is an indication of how much the town needs the Redgrave (or maybe a Redgrave Theatre replacement?). The ugly face of the Woolmead should be a lesson to Farnham's inhabitants, never to let into the town those who slyly come here to meddle, driven by the desire to make money in the name of some ill-considered "development"? The names of those councillors and others who would betray our town, for whatever reason, be they Labour (new and old), Tory, Liberal Democrat, should be chiselled into a wall in Farnham's town centre – so that the apathetic among us are not allowed to forget the consequence of having had no guts, when we had a town to defend that was beautiful enough to be worth defending. D Stinton, Castle Street, Farnham
