RICHARD HOWELL, of North Huish, South Brent writes:

I am at a loss to understand how Malcolm Elliott can claim the decision to allow 27,924 solar panels to be erected at Marley Thatch Farm 'was decided in an open and transparent manner'.

As the council's planning development manager acknowledges, the application was resolved under the South Hams Council scheme of delegations. This scheme allows the ward member, to avoid even the most contentious of planning applications being exposed to public scrutiny by the elected members of the development management committee.

By opting to decide the application in this way, South Brent Cllr Cathie Pannell was able to ensure no member of the public was present to witness her deliberations with council officers and the vice-chairman of the council's development management committee, Cllr Robert Steer.

Not exactly an 'open and transparent' process, you might think, especially considering that less than a fortnight later on July 9, when Teignbridge Council met to consider a similar application on a site less than 30 miles to the north, again overlooked from Dartmoor National Park.

Here a company had applied to build a solar farm on 40 acres of farmland next to the A30 at Goldcross Hill, just to the west of Tedburn St Mary.

Again, while acknowledging that there would be some negative impacts from the proposed development, council officers felt these would be sufficiently localised that the benefits of the scheme would be overridden, and recommended permission be granted.

Significantly, the officers concluded the impacts on the wider landscape would be quite limited. However, like both North Huish and Diptford parish councils in the case of Marley Thatch Farm, the Tedburn St Mary Parish Council disagreed.

Consequently the application was referred to the democratically elected members of the Teignbridge planning committee for consideration. The councillors refused permission, giving as their reason the adverse impact on landscape value.

An impact many might consider no less severe than that which is about to be inflicted on the northern skyline of the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at Marley Thatch Farm.

Noticeably, the key difference dictating the way in which the two applications were determined was the response of the district councillors for the Wards concerned. In Teignbridge, Cllr Bromell acknowledged the concerns of the parish council, and requested consideration by the committee.

Conversely in the South Hams, according to the minutes of their May 28 meeting, Cllr Pannell stated she would take no part in any discussion of the Marley Thatch application by South Brent Parish Council as, she said, the application would be decided by South Hams Council. But, regrettably, and for whatever reason as we now know, Cllr Pannell then chose not to refer the application to the council's development management committee. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with either decision reached, the process followed by Teignbridge was clearly more transparent.

In the South Hams, it seems, localism begins at district rather than parish council level.