Richard Howell, of North Huish, South Brent, writes:

'Please could you publish the names of the 15 councillors on the South Hams Council who voted for the wind turbine at Sherford,' your correspondent Chris Pring asked, adding: 'Then we can get rid of them at the next election.'

'Unfortunately,' you replied, 'the vote regarding the wind turbine at Sherford was unrecorded.'

As a result, you explain, the names of the 15 councillors who voted in favour cannot be obtained.

Yet again, this illustrates the disturbing democratic deficit that persists with regard to planning decisions in the South Hams.

In recent weeks, councillors on the development management committee have ignored the wishes of both Totnes Town Council and a further 5,749 citizens, some 80 per cent of whom were residents of the town, who signed a petition objecting to Costa Coffee eroding the distinctive character of Fore Street.

As the mayor of Totnes, Pru Boswell, explained: 'It's so alien to what the town's about.'

Similarly, in the case of the wind turbine at Sherford, near Kingsbridge, the parish council objected on the basis there was no viable farming business case and the visual and landscape impact.

Fifteen unnamed councillors clearly disagreed.

By the same token, in the case of Marley Thatch Farm, two district councillors met behind closed doors with council officers to disregard the views of both Diptford and North Huish parish councils and allow almost 50 acres of unspoilt farmland to be scarred by a sea of unsightly solar panels.

In the latter two cases, councillors are only too ready to stress the need for farm diversification. Agriculture, as they rightly say, is an important employer, accounting for around six in every hundred jobs in the area.

However, as Sherford Parish Council pointed out, wind turbines and solar panels have little to do with any known agricultural activity, apart from milking subsidies. Neither will create any local jobs, and neither offers any economic benefit to anybody in the local community, apart from the landowners in question.

Conversely tourism and hospitality, which account for more than three in every five jobs in the area, 10 times as many as agriculture, are almost entirely dependent on the distinctive character of our landscape, coastline and towns to attract visitors to the region.

Not only do the planning decisions decided by certain councillors ignore local opinion, disregard the council's own policies and profoundly damage the unique character our towns and countryside, but they also pose a serious threat to our future economic prospects. Consequently residents have the right to know the names of those councillors who may cost them their jobs, so that come the next election they can, as Chris Pring suggests, be held to account.

Perhaps the Gazette might like to ask the chairman of the development management committee, Cllr David May, why the necessary records are not currently being kept?