Geraldine Braes, of Frogmore, writes: In response to last week's article 'Pickles to decide on turbine', I am, like Cllr Brazil, also 'shocked and disappointed'. Would Cllr Brazil please report on all elements to this application and give an overall balanced view from the South Hams and local communities, all parish councils, organisations and South Hams Council experts? Also, not make incorrect statements and pursue what is a personal campaign, as demonstrated at the development management committee planning meetings, for an individual's planning application? There is not 'a small group of determined and motivated objectors' who oppose all wind turbines. There are hundreds of ordinary people throughout the South Hams who are opposed to this turbine application. Plus organisations such as the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the South Hams Society, and a large local ­petition all strongly objecting. There has also been support from Sarah Wollaston MP, and South Pool Parish Council unanimously recommended refusal. These objections are not for all turbines, but for this large, 112-foot application for which all the experts at South Hams Council recommended refusal, these being a senior planning officer, the landscape officer and the environmental officer. All recommended refusal due to the size, location and impact on the AONB and heritage assets, as advised by English Heritage. Yes, ward councillors are elected democratically; however, the DMC is self-appointed by South Hams Council. The DMC being a small group of councillors who have the authority to ignore their own experts, organisations and the South Hams public. Even when six voted against this application and five for, as one ­councillor was late, the chairman approved it. Which is why this decision is questioned by the local communities – and hopefully the Department for Communities and Local Government – with such strong opposition and direction for refusal twice. It was reassuring to hear Cllr Payne's comments at the DMC meeting on December 3: 'I have taken the trouble to have gone through the report that came before the council on May 14. I've gone through it in great detail. The report had, altogether, 28 reasons why we should not have supported that application. Twenty eight policy ­reasons and reasons put forward by our officers as to why the application should have been refused. Against that there were just six to say they could consider this to be approved. 'This application causes me great concern, because quite clearly members of the public, the vast majority of the ­members of the public in the area, did not support this ­application and we must listen to people as well as officers and as well as policies.' This is not democracy in action – when will the DMC speak for the sensible and ­distinct majority who do not want this installation? Councillors are elected to represent the views of their constituents and parishioners and listen to expert advice – not to use their office to promote their own prejudice.