Sir – Your Comment leader Protest will need to step up a gear (p.6, Feb 11, 2015) was disappointingly out of context, in its expression of surprise at your reported turnout of protestors outside Woodstock’s Town Hall on Friday [Feb. 6th].

The brief protest that day was actually only a single, limited element of a robust and continually intensifying campaign against the so-called ‘Woodstock East’ development proposals.

Your Comment went on to posit misguided interpretations of the level of local “people power”. Your perception was based on an incomplete snapshot of a single 2-hour event, scheduled at short notice for a weekday afternoon during school-run time and working hours.

It didn't mention protests continued outside the Town Hall for several hours the following day (Saturday), near the bustling farmers market where activities drew a very large amount of active interest indeed. Numerous residents, not just from Woodstock but also from nearby villages, supported protestors and shared concerns about adverse affects of the proposals.

They signed petitions, requested objection campaign signage to display on their own properties, and signed up to support CPRE and ROAR (Rural Oxfordshire Action Rally). Your Comment didn't mention the active and financial backing Woodstock Town Council has invested in its role of objection which forms part of a wide-ranging community campaign, including production of outdoor banners and signs. Nor did it mention the many hundreds who have submitted objection letters, assisted by guidance and updates shared widely by the Woodstock Action Group (WAG).

Your Comment didn't mention the continually growing display of ‘Save Woodstock’ campaign signage on land around town, and in windows. It didn't mention the recent Woodstock Town Poll in which more than 85% of Woodstock electors who voted declared objection to any development or urbanisation on green fields abutting and surrounding our town. Your Comment didn’t mention the Town Meeting called by residents, packing the Community Centre to full capacity, which gave rise to the Poll and nearly unanimously resolved a similar version of the question.

Public experience with controversial development proposals by Pye and Blenheim (ie, at Land North East of Marlborough School, and Long Harborough) shows these Applicants are unlikely to be significantly swayed by opposition, regardless of the intensity of objection. But the planning decisions rest with elected District Councillors. It shouldn’t be just a bean-counting exercise. The merits of the grounds of objection should enjoy proper consideration, too. But I’d say “people power” in Woodstock is looking good, and continually intensifying.

Sharone Parnes, Woodstock