I AM writing in response to comments by Nicola Evans and her agent, John Milverton in the Times, (May 15), concerning the wedding venue at Lower Grenofen and in particular, the planning process. Their over-arching complaint seems to be that the public and elected councillors were given any kind of voice at all in the process. Nicola Evans asserts that the objectors are a vocal minority. I cannot see what evidence she has to support this, unless her presumption is everyone who did not write a letter of objection is, de facto, a supporter. The planning officer's report to West Devon Borough Council included an analysis of all the representations; there were 83 objections and 45 in support. Nicola Evans intimates that representations from outside the area have no validity and says 'most of the objectors did not live in Tavistock or Grenofen'. According to the planning officer's report, 61 objections came from Grenofen, Tavistock, Crapstone and Yelverton, with a further seven from the WDBC area; only 15 objections came from outside the local area. Of the 45 letters of support, five were from Tavistock, ten were from local businesses and 30 were from outside the area. There may be a legal presumption in favour of development, but it does not alter the fact this was a local issue, and now a decision has been imposed on the local community in the face of overwhelming local opposition. As for consulting neighbours, the applicants told me they wanted to hold six weddings a year, and I had no objection, however the subsequent planning application was for 56 weddings a year. I acknowledge that the applicants have gone to considerable trouble to mitigate the impact of the business on the area, except in one critical regard; the scale of it. It is not the case that the neighbours do not want to see any change, rather we are concerned about the scale of the enterprise envisaged and the impact it will have on the area. It is misleading to say that the objectors had no evidence to back up their argument. Just as the applicants provided reports to support their argument, so did the objectors, with input from a number of professionals, including accountants, business people and a logistics manager in the events industry with over 30 years experience. WDBC had asked, if the planning inspector was minded to grant permission on appeal, it should be on a three year trial basis. Given the strength of local concerns, that would have seemed a reasonable request, but it was turned down.  Nicola Evans and I do agree on one thing. I too hope that over time we will see that our concerns were unfounded. The problem is, if the objectors are proved right there will be nothing we can now do about it. Jonny Kurzman Tavistock I WRITE with respect to the planned development of the 'Ever After' wedding venue at Grenofen. In short, I'm puzzled by the sequence of events. It was perfectly clear that extensive building work was being conducted at the site some time ago, presumably in anticipation of obtaining planning permission. I can only express my surprise at what must have been a financially risky venture, or was the outcome of the original application and subsequent appeal a forgone conclusion? Steve Hipsey Tavistock