It is very unfair of ex-councillor Bill Buckingham to say that John Green "opposes everything connected with the police that could be an advantage on our estate - cameras, now the flat". (Oxford Mail, August 3).

At the last south-east area committee meeting, approval was sought for the police to use a ground floor flat which adjoined the street wardens' office, and which once was a flat for the elderly. I, too, protested against the change of use.

Neither Mr Green nor I were against the idea of a police presence in the area.

What we were against was the taking away of another housing unit, especially when the city council has an insufficient number of units to meet the demand of people seeking accommodation.

My own personal objections were based on the following: Plans are still being drawn up for the redevelopment of Rose Hill. Why cannot a purpose-built station/office be included in the design?

Talks of refurbishing and enlarging the community centre are still being discussed. Cannot the police be accommodated in the plans? I believe that the Barton Neighbourhood Committee is making moves to accommodate the police at its centre.

The recent expensively refurbished Rose Hill district office has been vacated, staff having been moved to Horspath offices. The district office is now open twice a week which, I am sure, is uneconomical. Could not this building be put to better use?

I did not get answers and was not surprised that the committee approved the 'change-of-use' proposal.

As for the CCTV camera recently installed at The Oval, which I now believe is functioning, it was found that a very mature tree was obstructing its field of view. What was the council's proposition? To chop the tree down!

If councillors accept their officers' advice as gospel and do not scrutinise their reports, they leave themselves open to questions from residents when the council acts in mysterious ways.

VIM RODRIGO Rivermead Road Rose Hill Oxford