IN RESPONSE to comments (Lancashire Evening Telegraph, July 30) about the outcome of the planning appeal at Whitehough, Barley, I think readers should be aware of the background.

Pendle Council received strong complaints, including a petition, from members of the public about the Garveys' house as it was being built, that the building, and, especially, the materials being used, were very inappropriate in this rural setting. The decision to take enforcement action had the full support of local residents.

The Barrowford and West Parishes Committee considered the matter fully on two occasions. On one of these, the Garveys, through their planning consultant, put their side of things at some length.

A separate meeting was held between the Garveys, their representatives, Councillor John David and council officers to try to resolve the matter.

There were genuine questions of interpretation of the plans and planning conditions. These were aired fully at the public inquiry.

The Garveys have singled out Councillor David and Councillor Shelagh Derwent for criticism. The decision to take action had the support of all members of the Barrowford and Western Parishes Committee and raised no dissent from the co-opted members of the parish councils.

The advice to committee was that while the Council's case was not strong, it had reasonable arguments to put. Officers did not consider there was a significant risk of costs against the Council.

In my opinion, the reaction of the Garveys since the planning appeal inspector's decision is out of all proportion. They seem to be suggesting that what has happened is extraordinary. But all over the country, councillors are sometimes forced to take planning decisions which are not the strongest in pure planning terms, but which they genuinely believe to be right. This is democracy and sometimes the price to be paid is that the Council ends up paying costs.

I believe that, here, the award of any costs is harsh and that the inspector was overly critical of the Council. I know that this is the view of the planning and legal staff involved. When the Garveys do submit their costs claim this will be scrutinised and dealt with quickly. They will get their reasonable costs of pursuing their appeal. I seriously doubt that they can justify costs anywhere near the figure of £50,000 being bandied about.

I am disturbed by the actions of the two Pendle Labour Councillors, Frank Clifford and Azhar Ali, in this affair. Councillor Clifford took the highly unusual step of speaking on behalf of the Garveys and against the council at the public inquiry. He even suggested that costs should be awarded against the council.Both councillors chose to ally themselves with Garveys by appearing on the same press conference platform.

As well as making a political attack, they associated themselves with unfounded public criticism of senior council officer, whose only 'crime' was to carry out the instructions he had been given.

Add to this the fact that two senior Labour councillors from Rossendale also gave evidence at the inquiry, then perhaps a picture of deliberate action to support their view that planning should be decided centrally and not locally begins to emerge.

COUNCILLOR ALAN DAVIES, Leader, Pendle Council, Town Hall, Nelson.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.