I ESTIMATE that the area on which seventeen only visible houses stand in Gleeson's so-called artist's impression is approximately eleven acres.

That's less than two houses per acre. On that basis 800 homes would need a square mile. So, not an artist's impression so much as an artist's misrepresentation.

I hope your readers' expectations weren't too high if they went along for the presentation (oops! consultation) at St Leonard's. I recall our very own planners' consultation on the South Worcestershire Development Plan at the same place when after their promotional power point they asked the audience to respond on Post-it notes. Where are they now, planners? I hope you are looking after them carefully.

Ho, ho, ho! In both cases fait accomplis masquerading as consultation. Gleesons' is the more honourable one in that we all know what developers are about. But we deceive ourselves if we think that planners work in our (townsfolks') interest. Ever since they let developers dictate to them the South Worcestershire Development Plan they have been the developers' advocates. After all, they paraded the SWDP as the 'preferred option', always determinedly omitting to say who preferred it and what other options had been considered and rejected.

Add to this our local political mess, where - for instance - the vote goes against you on the SWDP you ignore it and conduct it again a month later when you've had time to impose a three-line whip (the notorious Bank House public meetings).

Yes, that was David Hughes, Planning Portfolio holder and now ex-councillor, who, it is revealed, has a major personal financial interest in planning matters.

CHARLES EDEN Madresfield