We would like to congratulate East Hampshire District Council for its month-long consultation on its plans for increasing active travel in their region, described in their Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). It stands in stark contrast to Farnham, where the development of a LCWIP was halted almost a year ago.

It seems ironic, as we approach this sad anniversary, that Surrey County Council has just been awarded £4.4 million of central government funding for active travel. But without an adopted LCWIP it will be all but impossible for Farnham to access its fair share of this cash.

Furthermore, the draft Farnham plan appears to be secret and apparently won't be made available until it is finalised. So, unlike the voters in the county next door, Farnham residents will not have a chance to comment on the proposals.

On the face of it it seems we have a residents’ party in power without any intention of consulting residents. Meanwhile, work on the £15 million taxpayer funded, town centre roads project has started. It contains no new cycle tracks to encourage local people to cycle into town if they live outside of walking distance, even when the roadworks are taking place, despite the scale of this two year project.

We called on the council to introduce a simple town centre network before the roadworks started, providing shoppers, commuters and town centre workers an alternative to the car and congestion during the roadworks, at least.

Farnham's few existing cycle tracks are also falling into disrepair with tree roots and overgrown vegetation increasingly causing problems, making them as uncomfortable to use as our pothole-filled roads.

So, the questions arise: what happened to the climate emergency declarations from all local councils?

What happened to the 'overall objectives' of the Farnham Infrastructure Programme which promised 'create solutions that make walking and cycling the most natural choice for shorter journeys, or as part of longer journey'?

Peter Goodman

Farnham Cycle Campaign

I am more accustomed to writing to express disagreement with the views of Damian Hinds MP. However, this time, his comments about landline analogue switch off and conversion to digital are correct, but I feel he does not go far enough.

The switch off is being progressed by mobile phone companies more concerned with raising charges and profits than any concept of service to the public and communities. These are the same companies that appear to refuse to invest in improved mobile signals, and this applies not just in rural areas as suggested by Damian Hinds.

The same is true in many parts of Petersfield, which experience poor or non-existent reception. Just ask many of the market traders (both the weekly markets and the farmers’ market).

Pressure needs to be put on the mobile companies to invest in new and improved masts, and also on the South Downs National Park to permit such additional masts as are needed.

We clearly live in the digital age and thus need the digital infrastructure to enable it. Fibre-optic broadband to homes and businesses is no substitute for good 4G and (eventually) 5G service.

Perhaps, with the apparent imminent demise of the postal ‘universal service obligation’ this should be replaced by a similar obligation on mobile phone companies to deliver such a universal service to all homes and businesses to an appropriate high standard?

Mike Wallace

Lower Mead

Petersfield

In response to ‘Has our grammar gotten worse?’ the word ‘gotten’ was used in the Middle English period from 1100 to 1500, which seems to pre-date (precede) American English - but I am open to contradiction on this point.

Nowadays, the English language seems to have taken on a lot of rogue words or redefined many. A prime example is ‘brilliant’, which seems to mean mediocre but should mean brightly coloured or clever.

‘Invariably’ is used instead of ‘almost invariably’, while ‘literally’ seems to mean almost. There is probably a never-ending list but I rest my case.

Funnily enough, English Language is my only GCE which I took whilst with the Zambian air force on secondment, just for something to do.

I suggest that David Blower casts his slings and arrows at the users of ‘text speak’- that is really dragging the English Language down to the depths.

David Lloyd

Highfield Road

Petersfield

A few weeks ago, you published a letter from me, written in response to an article in Peeps into the Past, about the 1830 Swing Riots in Hampshire.

The article mentioned a trumpeter, who played a small part in the riots.

The Museum of Farnham has the trumpeter's wooden grave marker next to the drainpipe at the front of the museum. I wrote in to ask if anyone had information as to how it had come to the museum.

I would like to thank those who responded and to let your readers know that we have now managed to complete the story of how and why it came to be there.

If anyone is interested to find out more, the museum offers a guided tour of the house on the second Saturday of every month.

Marilyn Lindsey

Museum of Farnham volunteer

Your article about Aldershot being considered by a Sunday Times survey to be the worst town to live in and its borough council, Rushmoor, also recently ranked the worst to live in.

Yet, while reading the notes for the Hampshire and the Solent devolution consultation, paragraph 4.2 stated: “…in terms of productivity per hour worked, Rushmoor is the most productive local authority in the country after the City of London.”

So, not all bad then? I wonder, any correlation? Or, just a coincidence?

Stuart Hunter

Queens Road

Alton