SURPRISINGLY, I have some sympathy with Chris Titley's comments in the Diary about the planning meeting on the Derwenthorpe application (February 2).

Firstly, I was only prevented from voting at the planning committee by a last-minute accusation by the secretary of the council's Labour Group that I "had already expressed (my) opinion against the application at public meetings of the New Osbaldwick Committee on more than one occasion".

Her express intention was to stop me being on the committee and must have known that an allegation of having a prejudicial interest, although unfounded, would have that effect.

Why were the Labour Group wanting to sabotage "democratic representation"? Was it because most of them were in favour of the application?

Secondly, the guidelines for conduct of members may not be new but seem to be applied more and more bizarrely. The latest (and topical) instance of this is my receiving legal advice, as a member of the Fire Authority, from an authority officer that it may not be advisable to visit the fire station to take firefighters' views on proposals for the use of resources in our area.

As with the Derwenthorpe issue (when I did actually speak to the meeting as the ward member), I hope I can take a pragmatic view on how best to carry out my role as councillor.

But there are already too many legal minefields, without fellow councillors (albeit political opponents) using spurious allegations to try to silence "democratic representation".

Jonathan Morley,

Hempland Lane,

York.

Updated: 11:34 Saturday, February 05, 2005