Sir,- Mr Thurston makes some excellent points in his recent letters to you about housing targets. There is a stark contrast between Surrey, which persuaded the government to accept lower targets and our local council which actually agreed a higher target than the government originally demanded.

I came to live in Twickenham as a child in 1940 and particularly enjoyed the sense of spaciousness in our borough. That is rapidly vanishing. It was a pleasure to walk along many of our built-up streets as there were so many houses of character. They are rapidly being torn down to make way for smaller dwellings, all too often of indifferent design and little character. A target' of 4,860 new dwellings gives the green light to developers as I have found to my cost when attempting to support local residents objecting to planning applications

There are two further consequences.

The population is scheduled to rise from 179,000 in 1996 to 226,000 in 2016, an increase in excess of 25 per cent. New families need school places. New buildings, new schools are needed to provide these places. So even more open land is lost. In planning for new school places Ofsted says that Richmond upon Thames Council lives from hand to mouth'.

So, for example, Orleans Park School, where the grounds foster good school sports, is to lose a large part of its playing fields. I have repeatedly asked the council to give an estimate of the number of additional school places needed to cater for this increased population. I have received no response. Yet in the 1970s I was a member of a working party which planned ten years ahead: advance planning enables full consideration of alternative sites, full consultation with residents.

One of the first acts of the next Conservative council will be to plan ahead so as to avoid bulge classes and obtain the support of local residents for any new buildings.

Secondly, an increasing number of people, depressed by the infilling, the destruction of fine houses, the burgeoning population is now planning to move.

We love the house but soon we shall have to go some way into Surrey'' (recent resident of Hanworth Road): Hampton is changing - and for the worse: we are moving out'' (resident of Broad Lane). Just as the distinctive character of the borough is changing, so the population is changing also.

The next Conservative council will address the issue. If we can renegotiate the 4,860 target with the government, we shall do just that - and soon. If not, we shall do our level best in the years ahead to ensure that Richmond upon Thames retains its distinctive character, the character that over the years has made so many people life-long residents.

- Cllr Geoffrey Samuel, Conservative, Richmond upon Thames Council, York House, Twickenham.

Editor: Mr John Thurston of High Street, Hampton Hill, who sent a letter expressing similar senti -ments last week, wishes to make it clear that they were his own views and not those of the Hampton Hill Association, of which organisation he is secretary of the environmental forum.