I CAN remain silent no longer! I have every sympathy for residents near the Barbican site who would like the planned flats opposite to be lowered, taken back a bit and camouflaged by greenery.

Why isn't someone amending designs accordingly?

The licence presently being applied for does seem extreme in an intensely residential area. Why doesn't someone suggest a midnight compromise - on a see-how-it- goes basis, with the right to review a year later?

The onus is then on the management to ensure orderly departure and thoughtful conduct, to decide the future.

Could the reason for this non-action be greed? The most flats possible? The greatest possible revenue from drinkers? Greed is a poison chalice, because the venue is "dark" and the pool rots and no replacement can be started.

On the other hand, I have vivid memories of over 18 months of very demanding campaigning to Save Our Swim.

What do we have now? Nothing! Most people have had to either give up swimming - and, incidentally, gym visits - or go elsewhere, and almost certainly pay more and use more petrol.

If the Barbican is dark much longer there will be no potential customers left.

Then we can sob for our swim; sob for our gym; sob for our snooker; sob for our community carols and concerts on behalf of veterans. We can sob for the lot.

There will be no developer. No money in the coffers. No refurbished Yearsley. No burnished Edmund Wilson. How can this be called 'Saving Our Barbican'?

It is time Steve Galloway, who used to swim at the Barbican and who made many claims blaming Labour and their singular leader, for the Barbican's and Yearsley's, predicaments, took some decisive action to resolve this costly and, possibly, fatal deadlock.

DC Nicholson,

Vice chair Barbican Action Group,

Grange Garth,

York.

Updated: 09:55 Saturday, June 04, 2005