Sir, You report (September 8) that South Oxfordshire District Council has quite rightly taken firm action against the former chairman of its own planning committee, for erecting an unpermitted dwelling in direct contravention of council policy, which the council described as "probably the biggest breach of planning controls in recent years".

However, this is the same council which, as you reported on July 14, had itself been party to the erection of unpermitted commercial advertising signs on all the roundabouts in the district; signs which they were forced to admit were breaches of both planning controls and their own policies, but which they nevertheless decided do nothing about.

It is right to take action against any of us who breach planning controls; but the council must recognise that it should treat itself in the same way that it would deal with anyone else who had intentionally blighted the countryside with unpermitted commercial advertising signs, as the council itself has done - signs which are not only unsightly, and contrary to the council's own policies, but also a dangerous and deliberate distraction to motorists.

There must surely not be one law for the council and another for everyone else. The council must accept that it has a duty to take down its damaging and unpermitted signs in just the same the same way it is requiring Mr Nixey to remove his unpermitted house.

It is surely South Oxfordshire District Council's deliberate flouting of the planning controls it is entrusted with upholding, and flouting the policies we rely on it to enforce, which is really "the biggest breach of planning controls in recent years".

Michael Tyce, Chairman, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Thame District, Waterstock