I WOULD like to thank all those who have been supportive of my quest with regard to seeking a judicial review for the planning permission granted to Marchfield Properties for their Plymouth Road premises. The facts I state here are supported by documentary evidence. I do not intend to launch any personal attacks. While it is necessary to mention individuals and their part in this account of events, I do not do so with any malice towards any elected member at the council. In the autumn the council's economy team conducted an economic benchmarking study in Tavistock and the draft preliminary report was sent to me five working days before the Christmas break. The earliest opportunity to review this with the economy officer was late in the afternoon of January 6. The report presented a mixed picture but most worrying was the level of independent retailers who were experiencing either flat trading results or reduced profits and turnover. Coupled with the closure of several retail shops in the period before and after Christmas, it was clear to me that there was (and still is) a dangerous degree of fragility in the High Street economy. It added weight to the arguments presented in both of the retail impact assessments prepared for the Marchfield Planning Application, both of which agreed that competition from an additional edge of town supermarket would have a negative impact on the town centre. It therefore strengthened the policy reasons for refusal: the National Planning Policy Framework recommends refusal where such developments would have a negative impact on town centres. I went into the council early on January 7 intending to find the chairman of the planning committee to ask her permission to present these facts and arguments to the committee. I could not find her but did bump into the vice chairman who after asking why I wanted to speak, suggested that I might not be able to do so. He did suggest we should check with the member services department. Despite this being a planning application that affected the economy, despite my lead position on the economy as chairman of the communities committee, despite new evidence that was clearly relevant, I was told that there was 'no provision' for me to speak. I was stunned, surprised and rather dejected but having had a ruling from the staff who should know the rules, I accepted the ruling and sat passively through the meeting. I was astonished and disappointed that the committee chose to ignore policy and grant the application, albeit by the slimmest of margins. Two members indicated how much of a knife-edge issue they found this to be. Had one or other or both taken a different view, the application would have been rejected. I am certain that I could have influenced them to change their position. In the weeks after the meeting it became clear the constitution does allow members other than ward members to speak with the chairman's permission, as I originally understood. This argument was made to senior managers at the council and was supported by the leader of the council and deputy leader. In my view, the matter should have been recalled: that the officers resisted this course of action was simply wrong. Democracy was subverted that day. There is insufficient space here to debate the subsequent legal events. Suffice to say, I felt that the council's legal case was disingenuous and but for financial constraints, I would have pursued the matter further. All that I can do now is to continue to serve those who elected me in Tavistock South and represent their interests at the council. I would like to extend my most sincere thanks to all those who have extended their admiration for my moral courage and given me such emphatic personal support. Cllr Robert Oxborough Tavistock South ward West Devon Borough Council