Sir – Readers would be excused for the confusion created by the stories about the decisions to be taken by the city council in respect of the redevelopment of Brookes University and by the county in respect of an incinerator and the disposal of its waste (Reports, September 3).

Both councils employ officers both qualified and paid to assess the merits of development proposals. Both councils have committees that are experienced in deciding applications based on advice given by officers and taking into account relevant views of interested parties, including other council departments. The transparency of the decision-making process in both cases is assisted by officer reports and open debate at committee, including public speaking.

We now learn that the decision on the waste incinerator will be taken by the cabinet of the county council.

Councillor Hudspeth is cabinet member responsible for the management of both the environment and waste but none of the other eight members of the cabinet (including Mr Mitchell as leader) appear to have any qualifications to decide highly complex development proposals, notwithstanding the suggestion in the newspaper report that information is missing about the disposal of the resultant ash. Having the approval of the strategic development control committee, Brookes University’s planning application has been referred to a meeting of the full council where members of the planning committee will be heavily outnumbered.

If the decision is limited to planning grounds, what purpose can there be for responsibility for an application, especially one so “large and controversial”, to be taken away from the committee with the most experience and competence to deal with all the relevant issues?

Planning decisions will always be political in the widest sense, but developers and public might have more faith in a system where decisions are taken by specialist committees.

Daniel Scharf, Tutor in Town Planning at Oxford University Department of Continuing Education, Oxford