Sir - Jane Dunn’s letter today succinctly expresses what Baildon is thinking.

If instead of the well laid out architecturally superior individual units which were to provide 700 new jobs, the councillors on the Regulatory and Appeals Committee had been asked to approve the tin sheds and the transfer of existing jobs from up the road,they would have rejected the application.

To say that it is now a “fait accompli”and that we must make the best of a travesty of the planning system, will not wash.

Whilst retrospective denial of planning approval will be expensive, justice should not be bound by financial considerations. If the R&A councillors do not use their delegated authority to make a stand, then a precedent will have been set whereby commitments to achieve approval can be subsequently disregarded with impunity.

The Councillor in charge of regeneration, the assistant director of planning and the major development planner, should be charged with the responsibility for pursuing a development which was not in effect approved.

The outcome must be that either the development reverts totally to that originally approved, or that the prepared site be used for much needed affordable housing.

John Pashley, Westcliffe Avenue, Baildon