Sir, – I disagree that Hambleton Council’s development committee arrived at the correct decision when they voted to defer a decision on the Bullamoor wind farm (D&S letters, Nov 20).

The Ministry of Defence air safety objections were explained in stark terms by representatives of the MoD Safeguarding Authority.

Considering the major risk posed to those living east of Northallerton, it was therefore right that councillors opposed the application during the discussion that took place prior to the vote.

That is until a senior planning officer Tim Woods made unsolicited and unsubstantiated remarks that cast doubt in councillors’ minds whether the views expressed by the MoD personnel accurately represented the true departmental position.

This was a disgraceful act designed to dissuade councillors from voting to reject the application outright. Mr Woods knows full well that the MoD has opposed this application consistently and on the same grounds since its position was first laid out in a letter to the council on February 18 and later confirmed by the Secretary of State for Defence in a letter to William Hague on February 24.

He also knows that despite 12 months of continual delays, Novera Energy has been unable to satisfy any of the MoD’s safety concerns.

The planning department is well aware that the MoD Safeguarding Department is responsible for formulating and expressing the official departmental view on these matters, and therefore Mr Woods’ interjection was not only inaccurate, but grossly disrespectful to the two MoD individuals at the meeting.

Such behaviour is aggravated by officials’ refusal to note the MoD’s objection in the minutes of this meeting on the grounds that the MoD is not a statutory consultee.

While this may be administratively correct, the MoD’s concerns are nonetheless of great public interest and should be formally recorded.

It seems that having successfully engineered yet another delay, officials seem keen to erase any record of the strong objections raised in a public forum.

Conduct like this amounts to an abuse of power requiring an explanation. Why has the planning office gone out of its way to keep this application alive when it is dead in the water?

I can only assume that officials are desperately trying to avoid outright rejection because it would immediately draw attention to 12 months’ unnecessary work wasted on processing a application that under the PPS 22 policy should not even have been accepted until all the aviation safety issues were first resolved.

R BIRCH Stokesley Road, Brompton, Northallerton.