I HAVE been reading with increasing concern, the articles which have been published in Kidderm-inster newspapers about the reporting of the decision made by the planning and regulatory committee to reject the application for the integrated waste management facility in Kidderminster.

You will know that councillors make various comments during meetings. What counts is how the committee votes on a particular motion.

In this case the clerk read out word for word the exact phrasing of what he understood to be the motion, as it was vital that the committee's reasoning was clearly recorded.

The five reasons recorded in the minutes for refusal were: impact on visual amenity, impact on nature conservation, impact on the canal conservation area, loss of existing sports provision, and public concern.

This will allow public concern over traffic to be put before any possible appeal.

The planning committee approved these minutes as a correct record.

Councillor Clee himself proposed that the minutes be approved. The committee did ask that Councillor Clee's full list of points be added to the record of the debate, and this has been done.

It seems to me that the officers have tried very hard to do their duty, which is to advise the members about how they can fulfil their role as a planning committee in accordance with natural justice - ie that the decisions must be based on planning grounds.

It is a great pity that Mr Townley and in particular Councillor Clee should seek to tarnish the professional integrity of well-respected officers in order to score points.

CAROL WARREN

Leader, Worcestershire County Council,

Stagborough Way

Stourport