SIR – Julian Jackson’s inference (Letters, January 7) is that all development proposals in accordance with the replacement Unitary Development Plan of 2005 are sacrosanct, and six years later the Council still has a legal responsibility to implement them.

This begs three questions:

1) What is the point of asking councillors to rule on planning applications historically linked to the RUDP, when the outcome is a foregone conclusion?

2) Is the RUDP the law of the Medes and Persians in that it cannot be reviewed or superseded by plans more akin to current community requirements?

3) If there was dispensation to allow the proposed demolition of the Odeon contrary to the RUDP, then a precedent has been established and the RUDP is not inviolable?

Perhaps learned readers would give an opinion.

John Pashley, Westcliffe Avenue, Baildon