RUTH Potter (February 14) has accused me of writing a misleading letter to you, but does not deny she had accused me of forming and expressing an opinion against the proposed "Derwenthorpe" development.

It was to avoid any suggestion of impropriety arising from this allegation that I stood down from my place on the planning committee which decided the application.

Mark Waters, in his letter, (February 25), talks about my deputy voting for the application - as if I had some control over how a colleague substituting for me would vote.

Each member of the planning committee has to make their own judgement about an application and I believe that is what happened.

I was disappointed that my arguments for more open space for playing fields and an eastern access for the development were not accepted by the committee.

I am sure the planning committee made its decision on planning grounds alone.

However, Adrian Wilson is quoted as saying the planning committee was, for financial reasons, "effectively obliged to grant planning permission" (February 18).

He has also questioned whether the council should have got more money for the land, presumably from a developer who would build more houses. Adrian Wilson might therefore have argued that the council had a financial interest in turning down the application!

I am concerned that there are unrealistic expectations of what a public inquiry would achieve. It is not likely to encourage modification of the proposals. If it confirms the decision it will reinforce Joseph Rowntree Foundation's apparent unwillingness to consider changes which may otherwise have been introduced at the "reserved matters" stage in the planning process.

If it were to go against the granting of planning permission to Joseph Rowntree, it will almost certainly open the doors to other developers and to more intensive development.

Jonathan Morley,

Hempland Lane, York.

Updated: 09:35 Tuesday, March 08, 2005