It is very puzzling that Barbican Centre users are starting a campaign to save it at this very late stage while complaining there has been inadequate consultation ('Battle lines drawn in Barbican fight', February 18).

Plans to redevelop the site have been on-going for three years. There was consultation on the first proposal and when the plans were adapted a few months ago there was further consultation and now that the planning application has been submitted there is more consultation.

There have been many articles down the years in the Evening Press and re-ports on local radio.

It is not true there will be a loss of sporting facilities. money from the pro-ceeds of the development has been set aside to replicate facilities elsewhere and talks have been taking place with Barbican user-groups for months.

Lest there be any confusion, the new pool - with its modern fitness facilities and crche - will still be run by the council with the auditorium and new four-star hotel run by the private sector providing modern conferencing facilities. There will be more housing, including much needed affordable housing. The development will provide money to refurbish Yearsley and Edmund Wilson pools.

We could have dropped the plans to refurbish the auditorium and develop the Barbican site. This would have meant the continued decline of a facility which needed modernising and the eventual closure of other pools.

The agreement now achieved will provide modern facilities for sportsmen and women city-wide with a refurbished Barbican auditorium. It is a partnership between the council and the private sector that will bring many benefits to the people of York.

Coun Keith Orrell,

Executive Member for Leisure and Heritage,

City of York Council,

Trent Avenue,

Huntington, York

...DOES the Save Our Barbican (SOB) campaign group really understand that the council is trying to do just that, and more?

The 'Battle lines drawn in Barbican fight' article which announced the launch of this pressure group suggests they do not.

The chairman of the meeting's assertion that the council plans "to sell off this precious asset does not serve the people of York" results from the blind stupidity of which he is accusing the council.

Having read recent press articles, my understanding is that the council's plan is: to obtain £10 million for a loss-making facility, ensure the auditorium is retained, obtain a replacement swimming pool, while also bringing about 60 affordable homes and a hotel that will boost the economy and provide jobs - all to benefit the people of York.

The disposal of this lazy asset thereby aims to both reduce pressure on the need for council tax rises, and also provide much needed funding to refurbish the Yearsley swimming pool.

Put simply, they are trying to tackle their financial problems, not by selling the "crown jewels" as someone at the SOB meeting suggested, but by prudent financial management in disposing of an asset that loses money.

Before York council tax payers sign the petitions and write the letters supporting the SOB campaign, they should examine the facts. Coppergate was not all about NIMBYism, but this clearly is.

Paul S Cordock,

Durlston Drive,

Strensall, York.

Updated: 10:25 Monday, February 23, 2004