I would like to thank the Deputy Leader of Rutland County Council, Terry King, for explaining in great detail the process for approving the scheme (Letters last week).

However if by detailing the number of committee meetings, council scrutiny panel meetings, development control meetings, consultations with the public, college staff and governors etc that the project plans have been subjected to, he was hoping to reassure us that there is nothing to worry about, he failed.

In fact, thanks to him the question now is: If the Big Build project has been discussed and scrutinised on so many occasions by so many commitees, how come only four out of nine planning committee members felt able to vote in favour of the development control department's report at the end of the planning application process?

Mr King does explain in his letter that decisions can be referred to the full council if there are 'significant new facts or there are doubts over facts presented at the original meeting' or 'where the majority of votes may be small or, where the decision was felt to be unsound by at least four councillors.'

In my book, only four out of a possible nine votes is definitely small and five abstentions certainly suggests that perhaps the decision was unsound. Why don't the councillors appreciate this?

I reiterate my belief that this project should be referred to the full council so that the problems which clearly exist can be discussed and resolved and the county council can avoid the embarrassment of having the Government Office doing the job for them.

They might also wish to question whether it is ever appropriate for a planning committee member to abstain in any vote on planning.

Surely, in planning, if you are not for the plans as they are presented, you must be against them.

The planning process allows for them to be re-submitted for further consideration, so what stops anyone making a positive vote?

David Beswick
via email