I WRITE in response to Jonny Kurzman's letter published in the edition dated May 8. Local democracy in the planning system does not simply mean a small group of people shouting loudly against an application.   Most of the objectors to this application did not live in Grenofen or Tavistock (several lived outside the UK), they were persuaded to join a campaign irrespective of whether there was any chance of them being remotely affected by the proposal.   From their comments it was clear that most of them had not read the application documentation.  The current planning system is based on a legal framework, which has as a starting point a presumption in favour of development.  There are procedures in place to protect people, places and wildlife that might be adversely affected by a proposal but any concerns must be evidence based, not vague and unsubstantiated anxieties. We met with our neighbours to listen to their views about our application.   We wanted to make sure that we dealt with any legitimate concerns they might have. However, they were clear that it would make no difference what we did to mitigate their worries, they simply didn't want to see any change.   Any objections to a planning application must be based on evidence in order to succeed.   No evidence whatsoever was produced either by the council, the planning committee or by any of the objectors to support their concerns about noise, traffic or wildlife.    That is why the committee's decision was overturned.   Unfortunately those advising the committee on the day failed to remind them that they are not able to refuse an application against officer's recommendation without good planning reasons and they had no good planning reason.   That is why we were awarded costs against the council.  The public can only see an event by actually coming onto our property, no-one can see the venue from their own home or their own road.   Jonny Kurzman is our nearest westerly neighbour and he is nearly half a mile away from the venue.  We will only be trading for five to six months of the year and will not hold more than two events per week.   The public will benefit from the two additional passing places on the lane throughout the year.  We believe that our new venture will bring new visitors and new business to Tavistock.   We received support from local business and local business support organisations, we received no objections from any local businesses.   We look forward to sharing this wonderful location with others and spreading the good news about the Tavistock area and all it has to offer.  I am genuinely sorry a small minority of people are upset and I hope that over time they will see that their concerns were unfounded.  Nicola Evans Lower Grenofen AS the agent who acted for Mr and Mrs Nash in their recent appeal regarding Ever After at Grenofen, it may be helpful if I pointed out that elected councillors sit on the development committee to ensure good decision making in planning matters. Mr and Mrs Nash commissioned professional reports (at considerable expense) in relation to noise, traffic, wildlife, flooding and economic impact. These reports were assessed by professional consultees on behalf of West Devon Borough Council (including their own environmental health officer) and all said that the proposed wedding venue would not give rise to negative impacts; indeed, the provision of two passing bays would positively assist traffic flows to and from the public car park. In the face of a vocal NIMBY campaign WDBC councillors duly refused the application on grounds of detrimental impact in terms of noise, wildlife and traffic flows without a shred of evidence to substantiate such a refusal. Costs are awarded in planning appeals only where the independent inspector adjudges councils have engaged in 'unreasonable conduct' and refusing an application for a sorely needed new business on the basis of false claims of harm is both unreasonable and unfair to the applicants. Regrettably, this is not the first time such costs have been awarded against WDBC recently due to poor decision making, to the detriment of the public purse. Councillors serve the public interest by making soundly based planning decisions, not by pandering to the public gallery. John Milverton MA MRTPI Planning Consultant WITH reference to the article in Times (May 8) regarding weddings and other events at Lower Grenofen. West Devon Borough Council is rightly shocked and disappointed at the reversal of their decision, as are the vast majority of Grenofen residents. Having read his report I believe that the inspector's arguments in overruling the council and granting approval are seriously flawed, but what I don't understand is how a civil servant from Bristol can rule against a decision made by local elected officials on a strictly local matter. For him to apparently have the authority to charge all of his costs back to the local ratepayers is a first class scandal. Terry Hatton Grenofen