It was encouraging to see our MP, Greg Stafford, raising the issue of the role of town and parish councils in any future reorganisation.

Whatever structure is imposed upon us by the Government, we must fight to keep a strong local voice for Farnham in decision-making and not settle for a powerless discussion forum.

Much of the fractious debate on local government reorganisation at Waverley Borough Council was centred around the political ambition of certain members of the executive, many of whom seem to think that saying something is doing something.

The portfolio holder for planning, in particular, waved her arms around like a whirling dervish and gleefully talked about how well Waverley works for and with the towns and parishes. Really?

Is this the same Waverley that reneged on several commitments in the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, including the agreement to purchase the land east of Farnham Park, designated as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace, to enable brownfield development within the town.

Is this the same borough that refused to adopt the updated Farnham Design Statement as a material consideration, because certain officers didn’t like the opinions of local residents, opinions that the relevant legislation allows them to express?

Surely she can’t be talking about the same Waverley, which has left all towns and villages at risk of speculative development by its total failure to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply? The current figure is 1.28 years.

There are always well rehearsed excuses, of course but, as all of us eventually learn, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions or lack of action at some point. Six years into an administration, it really is time to accept that the current administration at Waverley Borough Council has not delivered on planning.

The saddest fact remains that the Farnham Residents Party continues to reward this chronic failure by demonstrating unreserved support for the decisions of the Waverley executive, regardless of the adverse effect on our town.

Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has imposed thousands of dwellings on the borough as it stands and the move to a unitary authority will not change the need to deliver many of these in Farnham. There is no up-to-date Local Plan and residents’ associations and other local societies and conservation groups are keen to have a forum in which the future interests of the town can be debated and protected by whatever means available.

Ideally, this should be led by the town council but, so far, there has been little sign of strong, independent leadership, in the face of any opposition from the borough. Surely this is now a good time to cut those apron strings.

Cllr Carole Cockburn

Lower Bourne

Is it not alarming that Surrey County Council, wishes to create a unitary authority, in which Haslemere will be put in with areas with which there is nothing in common or no connection.

Staines and Ashford previously in Middlesex, making the northern boundary of the authority, the Heathrow airport fence, together with Runnymead, Elmbridge which are neometropolitan areas?

Experience is that resources are aimed at the north of the country and rural areas get very little. Already plans are in place for elective surgery to be carried out at Ashford hospital, not Guildford, making the journey impossible for those of us in the south of the county.

With Woking being in serious financial trouble, will Haslemere residents be picking up the bill?

Is it not time to look at old outdated boundaries - indeed the Haslemere constituency is in two counties.

Meridian TV is reporting that Crawley, West Sussex is looking to merge with Reigate and Banstead. Should not rural areas of southwest Surrey be merged with like rural areas of Hampshire or Sussex with which we have much more in common, rather than outer London districts?

Robert Knowles

Beech Road

Haslemere

In the Post and Herald edition of March 20, it is stated in a headline that ‘Our county among the worst for road collisions’. I am not surprised as looking at the accompanying picture, the vehicles are driving on the wrong side of the road! Accidents will happen therefore.

Sarah Wallace

Lower Mead

Petersfield

A leaflet I recently received stated that the investment for this year for resurfacing roads and pavements will be 163 miles resurfaced. I hope this is a typing error?!

As of 2023, Surrey county contained a total of 3,409 miles of road network (5,486 km). This comprised: 63.6 miles of motorways (102.4 km) 387.0 miles of A-roads (622.8 km) 245.4 miles of B-roads (394.9 km) 2,713.0 miles of C- and U-roads (4,366.1)

This is a pathetic 0.0478 percent and doesn’t include pavements.

Given the state of the roads with potholes everywhere, shouldn’t the allocation be up just a little bit or even a massive uplift.

Peter Stephens

Thorn Road

Wrecclesham

I would like to thank all the volunteers who put so much effort in to organising the RNLI Quiz at St Joan's on Saturday. We thoroughly enjoyed our evening and the home-cooked supper was splendid. The preparation of the quiz and the catering must have taken a great deal of work by many people.

Jane Kirby

Uplands Road

Farnham

With reference to your article on the Herald website (’Reform UK hosts event in Farnham’, March 24), which references the 'former' Conservative Club.

We just want to be clear that whilst we now trade as The Ivy Lane Club, we are still affiliated to the Association of Conservative Clubs.

Rachael McGarry

The Ivy Lane Club

Farnham