I have lived in the town centre for nine years and, like many, am puzzled as to how this mess has been allowed to happen.

This site is vital to regenerating that side of the town and should have been considered alongside Brightwell. I do not understand why positive build-out Section 106 obligations, supported by a bond, were not imposed as a precondition to planning when originally granted. Had that been secured, we would not be where we are now.

I have never seen any debate or accountability from local government, and we are stuck with the outcome—held hostage to watering down of obligations and consents while the town suffers.

I raised this with a councillor some while back, only to be told it’s in the past and we must deal with the present. Of course, but why?

How about a compulsory purchase order, or preferably a public-spirited benefactor to create and designate open space for the town?

Aidan Heathcote

Farnham

I moved to Lindford, Bordon, around 30 years ago. At that time there was a frequent all-day bus service to Liphook railway station. When I rang the surgery, a human quickly answered, and a routine doctor’s appointment could be made for the same week.

Best of all, Bordon had a community hospital. If I needed to see a specialist, it happened there, and if I needed recovery time after an operation, I could stay there.

Sadly, despite Bordon growing rapidly, instead of enabling a wider range of facilities, the reverse has happened. Public transport is now so sparse as to be almost useless, a robot answers the surgery telephone, and I can wait half an hour or more to speak to a person. To get a non-urgent appointment now takes many weeks.

Worst of all, the convenient local community hospital has lost more and more services and now seems set to close entirely. The plan is for a new health hub, proposed long ago but still only on paper. It is intended for land vacated by the Army, now part of a new town.

Councillors keen to promote this development see it as the ideal site. However, any such hub should serve the whole town. The existing hospital, centrally located with excellent road access, already does this. Scrapping it for a new facility elsewhere makes little sense—whatever name it is given, jargon won’t improve healthcare.

We are told the hospital is outdated and the proposed hub will do so much more. Do not believe this. What matters is the site and the building. New equipment can easily be installed, almost certainly at less cost than starting anew.

Unless the community wakes up and takes firm action, I see two possible outcomes for our community hospital: one, the hospital is demolished, the site cleared and houses built there and to the rear; or two, it is sold to a private healthcare company so the wealthy can enjoy facilities intended for the whole community.

Michael Huber

Lindford

If the prime minister reads the Herald and Post, I would like to offer him some reassuring words during these turbulent times: You are under heavy criticism, but do not let it bother you.

Remember this—millions of people could not possibly do your job successfully. You are not the only one.

Winston Burrows

Coppice Close

Farnham

In last week’s Herald and Post, David Lloyd asks why the name of our national flag has changed from Union Flag to Union Jack.

I am pleased to tell him the name has not changed—both Union Flag and Union Jack have been entirely acceptable since the 17th century.

There are many examples throughout history, but perhaps the best are two parliamentary answers recorded in Hansard, to the question of what flag a citizen may fly.

The first was in 1908 in the House of Lords (when it was called the Union Jack), and again in 1933 in the House of Commons (when it was called the Union Flag). In 1939, the then First Sea Lord declared both names correct, and the examples go on.

Nevertheless, many, including senior naval figures, are convinced it should only be called a Jack when used aboard a ship. This is not the case, although it is true Union Flag is more formal and Union Jack more populist. Both names are correct.

All that aside, the important thing is that we fly our flags enthusiastically, because a nation not proud to display its national flags is a nation in decline.

Malcolm Farrow

East Meon

I would like to respond to Mr Dolan-Shakeri’s letter on September 11, Disappointment at King’s Pond Meeting.

The meeting on September 2 was of the King’s Pond Community and Stakeholder Group (KPC&SG), set up by Alton Town Council (ATC). I fully agree there should be more representation from local community organisations in this group. ATC gave extensive publicity earlier this year inviting organisations and individuals to become involved.

Unfortunately, the response was patchy. Perhaps Mr Dolan-Shakeri could suggest to his residents’ associations that representatives take part in the KPC&SG — they would be very welcome.

It is ludicrous and ill-informed to suggest the group is unaware of work by SE Water, as I have referred to their project in every public meeting for the past year, including September 2. For two years ATC has hosted local liaison meetings with SE Water. We exchange information with them.

The King’s Pond Project is in Stage One. Design of both options will be preliminary—sufficient for costing, flood risk assessment, environmental impact assessment, and public presentation.

I have spent the past two years talking to hydrologists, water engineers, and freshwater contractors, and listening to knowledgeable opinions and advice. I have a clear understanding of how flood risk is assessed. Before you can work out the change in flood risk from alterations to a watercourse, you need to know what those alterations will be.

We don’t need to be hydrologists to know any change in flood risk due to work at King’s Pond will be downstream, not back towards the town—this is obvious from ground levels.

Meanwhile, ATC has still to make the decision to proceed with the Stage One design.

Don Hammond

Alton Town Councillor