TOM SHELL, of Alvington Terrace, Kingsbridge, writes:

Regarding the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), I read with interest Jim Tarzey's letter entitled 'K5 site deemed OK for homes,' which appeared in the paper dated, January 11.

In it he refers to para 214 of annex A to the NPPF and states that previous development plan documents must be afforded 'full weight' in the decision making process.

I assume he is referring to paragraph 214 of Annex 1 to the NPPF which states as follows:

'For 12 months from the date of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this framework.'

With respect, what Mr Tarzey has done is to extract a few words from this paragraph, changed 'may' to 'must' thus altering the meaning completely, especially as any decision will happen at least 12 months after the publication of the NPPF.

This, combined with Clare Carter's excellent report on the Masterplanning Steering Groups concerns regarding the many unresolved issues with the proposals for K5 lead me to the conclusion that 'K5 is NOT deemed OK for homes'.