Sir, I refer to Lee Upcraft’s letter in the Herald dated October 22, about the closure of St Alban’s Court, Wallingford, and Maureen Adams’ reply, for SOHA, of October 29.

Maureen Adams claimed many of the units are empty, and the building is unsuitable accommodation for new residents.

The flats have deliberately been left vacant for a considerable time as residents who have moved through necessity, for example to nursing homes, have not been replaced, but remaining residents have found the facilities more than adequate.

Surely it would have been cheaper to update facilities than to demolish and rebuild, especially as one of the buildings was designed to have a lift installed at a later date when a budget was available?

SOHA’s second point is that alternative accommodation was offered to residents. Many of the residents were elderly and not in need of gardens or excessive accommodation — that is why they chose to live at St Alban’s in the centre of town.

Some had difficulty in walking and St Alban’s provided easy access to shops, churches, libraries and other necessary facilities, enabling them to keep their dignity, respect and independence. Most now need transport from their new accommodation — this is not an acceptable situation. The residents did not want to move but were told they had to, and they were extremely concerned about where new accommodation would be offered.

Perhaps SOHA could explain, if a shortage of funds is the underlying issue here, why have carpets been cleaned in empty properties, and new taps fitted in a guest room, since the residents have been moved out?

The remaining residents, and the people of Wallingford, deserve to know what SOHA’s intentions are for the site.

Theresa Jordan

Thames Street

Wallingford