The recent letter from Chris Holmes published on September 11 is a classic example of a total misunderstanding of the planning process.

The role of a planning committee is akin to that of a jury hearing a criminal case. Whether the jury likes or dislikes the defendant or approves or otherwise of his actions is largely irrelevant and a thousand character witnesses on one side or the other should make no difference to their decision.

Likewise a planning committee is obliged to decide on applications such as WDDC’s Charles St Dorchester Office, Bridport SW Quadrant redevelopment and Barton Farm Sherborne in the light of national and local plan policy.

Even if one, 10 or 100 more persons speak against a planning application than in favour, it would be largely irrelevant if the view being supported by said objectors is contrary to policy.

The presumption – in law – is in favour of development unless the local plan dictates otherwise.

So is the process undemocratic as some suggest?

The process has been laid down by successive governments which had been elected and if a planning committee was to ignore planning policy the result could be to lose an expensive appeal – the cost of which would have to be borne by the local council tax payer.

Now that would not be democratic. The other issue that is often forgotten is that in many cases there will be planning reasons for and against the approval of an application.

Objectors may believe that one reason for refusal is sufficient and be willing to ignore 10 reasons to approve. Committees often have to make on-balance decisions.

A Banham, Chickerell Road, Weymouth