YORK council is adopting a "blank sheet of paper" approach to the development of the Castle area, according to leader Steve Galloway.

That must remain true throughout the consultation process. It was the inability of the council to look beyond one, monolithic, money-making scheme which caused so much anger and wasted so much effort last time.

If one lesson can be learned from previous, failed Coppergate II proposals it is this: the views of residents must be given more weight than those of outside developers.

This is not just another patch of land. It is a "site of national importance and international renown". Those were the words of the planning inspector John Bingham, who rejected the Coppergate Riverside proposal last year.

The architect of that scheme, Land Securities, clearly failed to understand the unique and special nature of the Eye Of York, coming up with buildings of "a grossly inappropriate industrial character" according to Mr Bingham.

Now Land Securities wants another bite at Coppergate. Its ideas should be not be dismissed; in the light of the inspector's damning report, the firm may now show the site more respect.

However, the people who are best placed to judge what would be right and wrong for this historic area are not Land Securities staff, but York residents.

Creating a park around Clifford's Tower, a popular, grassroots idea, was previously rejected out of hand. A "blank sheet of paper approach" means that it should be treated with due seriousness.

Of course a park would not give the city council a windfall. But this process should not be about instant riches; it is about creating something which will be right for York into the 22nd century and beyond.

Updated: 11:50 Thursday, April 08, 2004