On the grounds of flawed consultation the High Court has recently thrown out the Government's case to increase the number of nuclear power stations (Greenpeace v Government).

The ruling will dismay, I imagine, our Spelthorne Conservative councillors who voted for the destruction of the Benwell and Stanwell Elderly Day Centres as they admitted to the Ombudsman that Spelthorne people "overwhelmingly opposed" the closures, in response to the Spelthorne consultation exercise.

Their claim they can lawfully disregard the outcome of the consultation is now in tatters.

Spelthorne complainants to the Ombudsman, Harold Trace, and four local residents' associations are to draw the High Court ruling to the Ombudsman's attention when he visits Spelthorne in the near future, and will suggest that a new consultation process should take place.

The complainants will also point out that the councillors omitted to present itemised meaningful figures of the centre's running costs, failed to specify the measly savings (one pound per resident per year), and ignored the serious adverse impact on three other local budgets, namely NHS, mental health and social services.

The High Court ruling described the consultation before it as "seriously flawed and that the process was manifestly inadequate and unfair" because insufficient information had been made available for consultees (and in our case, I suggest our councillors) to make an intelligent response.

When, as seems necessary, a new consultation is arranged, it is imperative that all Spelthorne people say no.

In the last consultation, Conservative councillors claimed non-voters to be in favour of the closures.

IAN FRENCH Laleham Road Shepperton