It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that Netherton is in a ward with a massive Conservative majority where the council's decisions will have no effect on the outcome of the next election.
And nothing to do with the fact that when the current Northborough (Conservative) councillor won his seat he only had a majority of five votes so there is a danger that unpopular council decisions may lose the seat.
Nothing to do with party politics at all; it must be down to something else.

In my response to the core strategy (that's what the council will and will not be doing to Peacherborough over the next 20 years or so) I went through the 'evidence'.
Going through it carefully it was easy to point out it's frailty and how with a simple testing it did not stand up as evidence.
Having done so I stated that my greatest concern was that this 'evidence' would be used to justify policies in the future which given that 'evidence' couldn't be justified.
About a week ago I was reading through the last council minutes. I wasn't at all surprised to see that in answer to a question the leader of the council justified his answer by referring to a survey. I don't know how good that survey was but can come up with no valid reason why it should be any better than those for the Core Strategy.
Look at what is being built around you then look to see where the 'University' building is going. Ask yourself will the dwellings which form part of that plan be 'social' or 'affordable' housing. Both areas that the core strategy points out need addressing. Any of you who have lived in a University City will know the regeneration, the 'quality' food and drink establishments which cluster around the University and not forgetting the house price rises as lecturers look for homes close by.

I think a lot of it's down to the same old problem of people not actually being able to see and comment on the plans. If we could see the stuff on line, it wouldn't seem such of a whitewash.
It often seems that the bid decisions have been made behind closed doors before we even get to hear about them.

I THINK THE ANSWER IS, A TOTAL CLEAR OUT AT PETERBOROUGH COUNCIL FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. SPECIALLY THE TOP.

Excellent letter.

Glinton is a conservation area. Apparently.

"Some time ago another correspondent to The ET took to task a councillor who supported a development in Stanground while at the same time opposed a development in his village." !!!!

A superb letter. If you want to oppose an unwanted development, then you are going to have to do a lot of hard graft. What you have to do is analyse the developer's proposal and determine where it contravenes existing council policy and the Local Plan. You have to consider everything from increased traffic flow and flood risk to environmental damage, marshall your arguments, and put them across at every available opportunity. You have to get your city councillor plus the parish council on your side, organise a petition against the development, lobby the local media, organise a demonstration and raise merry hell in general. But it's the policy objections and deviation from the Local Plan that will swing the argument. It can be done - Northborough has proved it, at least so far - but you've got to be organised and determined.