IF your report of March 2 is correct, Peter Evely has once again let slip some crucial information of which most people were unaware.

Previously, in defending his proposed Straylands Grove bollard, he has cited concern about the "heavy volume of traffic" he fears as a result of his colleagues' approving "massive future development at Monks Cross and the Foss Basin" (Evening Press, February 15).

Now he goes a step further. Residents of Hopgrove Lane South are worried his proposed bollard in Straylands will create additional traffic through their road. They believe it will worsen an already difficult traffic problem, something which Mr Evely does not appear to acknowledge when he says "additional use of Hopgrove Lane would not be at a significant level that would give cause for concern" (Evening Press, March 2).

I drive that road regularly and beg to differ. Hopgrove residents feel that if Straylands is worthy of a bollard, so are they. It's a fair point; but Mr Evely's response is intriguing. He states that Hopgrove Lane South is an "ancient highway and it is this that forms the basis of its use by through traffic. It is part of the city's highway network, rather than a purely residential area".

This specious argument must be news to most council tax payers. What does he mean and on what is it based?

It seems that in Mr Evely's world, a classification of "ancient highway" determines which roads may enjoy bollards and those which have to suffer the consequences. This is a new invention.

How and when is this classification decided, and by whom?

We, and potential buyers, should be informed whether where we live is considered to be an "ancient highway".

M G Ives,

Southfields Road,

Strensall, York.

Updated: 09:27 Monday, March 07, 2005