SIR – I went to a Worcester Council planning committee meeting recently concerning a development in Sherwood Lane.

As residents we wanted the site to be developed.

We didn’t want two-storey buildings overshadowing existing bungalows. Is this unreasonable?

I mistakenly thought proceedings would be apolitical and reasoned debate would occur.

Not so; one party (Conservative), were for the residents’ views, the other, (Labour), were against.

Straightforward common sense and consideration of the local residents’ concerns were ignored. Is this democracy?

Planning’s interpretation of their own South Worcestershire Design Guide supplementary planning document makes it not worth the paper it is written on.

The county council are desperate to sell a piece of land, who cares what goes on it? Breaches of the SWDP? What breaches?

I can only comment on those present on the day, but we do get the councillors we deserve. There are good ones I do not deny, notably Cllr Marc Bayliss, but too many appeared to make a decision with little or no consideration of the local residents’ concerns.

Several made little or no contribution to the proceedings, other than to vote. Why are they there?

They make decisions that impact citizens’ lives forever and, in blasé fashion, move on to the next.

These people are supposed to be representing us.

Joseph Amos offered the view in a March letter that the planning committee was not fit for purpose.

Dr Dietlind Elsner recently concurred. What other conclusion can be drawn?

A veteran councillor made the classic remark, ‘You don’t always get what you want’.

There is no comment that better describes the lamentable crop of councillors present at that meeting.

JOHN HAYWOOD

Worceste