Sir - I write in response to Tom Edwards’ report on planning approval being granted to Gtech last week.
At the earlier meeting in February, when the council were “minded to refuse” planning permission, Mr Grey himself commented that the site adjacent to St Nicholas Church is already too small for his existing team. He has had to house a number of staff (I believe he said 18 people) in another location away from their current Spetchley HQ and his wish is to have his whole team together. 
Councillor Berry reported that the existing Gtech site has 75 parking bays. Given the number of existing staff, the size of the Warndon Villages site and the plans submitted by Gtech there is no way that 80 new jobs will be created and housed in this location. 
The concerns of residents, conservationists and Historic England have been ignored and local historic assets sacrificed on the basis of an unsustainable argument. 
Planners: shame on you all, with the exception of Councillors Agar and Berry whose integrity remains intact.
 Mrs. J. Griffiths, 
Warndon Villages Resident

Development plan ignored
Sir - It was hardly surprising that members of the Protect Warndon Conservation Area Group should greet the shock news of the council planning committee’s U-turn on GTECH’s application with words such as “travesty” and “dumbfounded”. 
For once these startling sentiments are an entirely justified, if slightly muted stance given the nature of the betrayal which has led to this change. Of course the city must seek means to provide and sustain a range of employment opportunities. 
That is one of the (many) aims of the recently approved South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP). But that policy framework also seeks to provide and sustain our natural and historic environment. 
The site in question was clearly not scheduled as employment land. Despite the applicant’s initial position that no other suitable sites were available, the existence of such opportunities has been made very plain by Gtech’s purchase of a site in nearby Brindley Road. 
So the planning committee’s decision that the proposal should be approved because the economic benefits outweigh any environmental harm it may cause is disingenuous to say the very least.
For many, the long, often bitter and always contentious process which led to the ratification of the SWDP was only worthwhile if the final policy document was to be taken seriously by all concerned, not abandoned on the first test. 
There are many lessons to be learned from this debacle, not the least that a democratically elected planning committee should respect and support a democratically acquired planning framework. Failure to do so is tantamount to a moral dereliction of responsibility.
Dr Malcolm Nixon
Worcester

Football site for factory?
Sir - Why doesn’t Nick Grey build his factory at the end of Spetchley Road, where the land was bought for the football ground. It would be nearer home for him and the ground has not been developed for anything else.  
W. Turberfield
 Worcester.

Help those who need it
Sir - The act of putting pen to paper implies that someone has given some thought to a topic. Mark Garnier demonstrates that one can get a few column inches and not employ any of the intelligence that Mother Nature took the time to bestow upon  him. 
Mr Garnier paints a particularly simplistic picture of the value of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to disabled persons. Of course he’s right when he says that the PIP is intended to provide financial assistance to cover the additional  costs that a disabled person might bear in order to get by with their condition. 
He disingenuously provides us with an example of the PIP paying for a stair lift which once provided, would mean that the payment would no longer be required. How little he knows!
Firstly, I think he rather underestimates the true cost of a stair lift. 
Our 18 year old daughter needs a stair lift installed which she wouldn’t be able to afford out of the PIP so she’s applied for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), not a quick process. 
Secondly, does he really believe that someone who needs a stair lift is suddenly magically cured once the stair lift has been fitted, and is able to walk unaided? 
It should not be beyond the realms of his imagination to understand how people who need a stair lift, might also be in need of other aids not provided for by a DFG?
Finally, who does he think is responsible for the long term maintenance and support of the stair lift? 
What does he think a stair lift runs on? Air? After the first year, maintenance becomes the responsibility of the person for whom it was installed.
Whilst our daughter might not fall into the category of a person for whom PIP would have been reduced the principle remains that we should be supporting those members of our community in most need of our help, this should always include those who are less able than ourselves.  
Might I remind Mr Garnier that our daughter can vote now? That she isn’t a ‘dog-end’ voter from an outlying region of the country? 
It is decisions like these that colour people’s attitude towards the government. If ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ isn’t an oxymoron when do the electorate get to see it in action? 
Perhaps Mr Garnier should take a long hard think about the impact of disability rather than look down from the ivory tower that is being able-bodied.
Robyn Norfolk
Worcester