It is one thing to have to respond through the proper planning process to a totally unsatisfactory ‘application,' but to have to also respond to a total misrepresentation of the out-come of a developer’s consultation on an application is another.

The report in the Advertiser (500 Attend A46 Hotel Consultation, May 31) was a most unbalanced article. It excluded any comments made by the people who attended.

The overwhelming majority of people who attended the consultation were strongly against it and for very good planning reasons.

I’m sure Newark and Sherwood District Council’s planning department, even at this stage, could verify the extent of feeling against the current proposals, if allowed to do so.

For the record, the land in question is defined as open break land in the district’s Local Development Plan on which any significant development should not be allowed.

The open break land definition is there to protect and preserve community identities.

On this basis, and if there is any integrity in Local Development Plan’s management, this and any further applications for this land should be dismissed by the planning authority.

Let it be known that if these proposals are allowed to progress to the detailed planning application stage they will be vigorously fought through the planning process.

However, it will be a sad day if it gets to that point. — Phil Holmes, Orchid Drive, Farndon.