Re: "Can we supersize that?" and "If you can't beat them, join together" (HT 8 April, pages 5 and 16). I concur with much of what Denise Chevin and Barbara Thorndick say and share many of Thorndick's frustrations. However, I would like to point out that there are far more than 71 developing registered social landlords within the "pilot" partnering programme.

For instance, the Wayfarer Partnership in Hampshire and Sussex comprises eight developing RSLs. The smallest partner, Petersfield, has 226 homes and 21 units in four schemes. Our lead partner, Swaythling, will produce 568 homes from 41 schemes as well as 741 homebuys.

Altogether, they and fellow members Drum, Hampshire Voluntary, Portsmouth, Reigate and Banstead, Winchester and Martlet have some 30,000 homes and bring many small but cost-effective sites forward through local contacts.

We believe all our bids were strengthened by our collaboration. We are jointly and equally working on a range of issues that will enable the partnership to achieve the enormous potential it has to transcend its initial driver to simply win grant.

I know of at least a dozen consortia with three or more genuine developing partners. These are excellent examples of partnership working that meet government agendas and bring benefits to the participating RSLs and most importantly the communities they operate in. I hope that the next round of "pilots" doesn't ignore the added benefits that can be achieved by such collaborations.

So in this context both big and small are beautiful but all the same, size does count.

I have no illusions about the future. The big RSLs stalled at the traffic lights will catch up and the next round will have reduced consortia numbers, shedding those who cannot deliver, who upset someone, or those who are, quite simply, in the wrong place.

Like many RSLs, Martlet Homes is looking for long-term partners who have the vision and drive to see beyond the immediate parochial sentiments of exclusive ownership.

Partnership can take many forms and degrees, however, and I would like to see the government recognising that an RSL can comply with a national objective by forming a range of partnerships. For example, one partnership could provide contact centre services, another development and so on.

We need to grow because if we don't, we'll wither away, depleted by right to buy leakage exceeding new development, constrained by over-cautious regulation, starved of grant in an area near the bottom of regional and national priorities despite our ability to deliver value and needed homes and with a shrinking income and asset base putting pressure on overheads.

If RSLs are simply "in" or "out" depending on size, I believe it is a lost asset to our communities. I don't necessarily believe that bigger is better, but I do think you need to be either big or very special to attract the power you need to compete for the scarce resources of the best people, land, money and government support necessary to sustain an efficient and effective long-term social business.

I believe very strongly in collaboration but I'm afraid that at some point, interests diverge.

We are not such a unified movement that we can resist being separated and hustled like so many sheep more or less at will.

We are, as we like to assert "independent businesses". What I need for my organisation is real clout so that we can take on the real developers and truly influence regional agendas to provide affordable homes where we want them. Ultimately, I think that means being an equal part of a larger group.

Partnering is a bit like prudent treasury management: a certain amount of hedging is a good thing, but you need a balanced approach and to remember that the aim is to procure as cheaply and safely as possible so you can achieve your real objectives.