WELL, 'Coppergategate' didn't add up to much, did it? The suggestion that crucial papers were withheld from councillors debating the Castle/ Piccadilly development is the sort of thing to get journalists salivating and the conspiracy theorists whispering.

It smacked of dodgy dealings, corruption behind closed doors. Could it even bring down the council?

Er, no. An inquiry found no evidence of malpractice. But wait. This inquiry was conducted by the council itself - doesn't that smack of dodgy dealings, corruption..?

Er, no. The Evening Press has seen the document in question, from the council's own conservation architect. She was pointing out that the scheme lacked architectural quality. And the councillors knew that already. "One of the main objections remains of the opinion that the design of the scheme is unacceptable", to quote from the officers' report into Coppergate Riverside, which all the councillors saw.

Or, to put it another way, it would be "an act of architectural vandalism for which future generations would never forgive us" (John Shannon, York Civic Trust). Or another: its "sheer scale... could damage the historic areas of York" (York Tourism Bureau boss Gillian Cruddas). Or another: "unspeakably bad" (architect Prof Patrick Nuttgens).

Thanks to their own officers, and to these experts, the councillors know that Land Securities' Coppergate Riverside is unworthy of this historic site. They know it to be an uninspired, unwieldy building which has no place within a million miles of the Eye of York.

And they voted for the damn thing anyway. That is the real scandal of Coppergate Riverside.

We must assume that our councillors tread the same streets as we do, mostly with their eyes open. We must take it on trust that they have noticed some rather nice buildings on their perambulations. Buildings such as Fairfax House, the railway station, Scarcroft School, Terry's, Bootham Park Hospital. Long-standing centres of commerce, such as Stubbs and the Merchant Adventurers Hall. Examples of modern architecture that challenge the senses and work with York's history, such as the CGNU headquarters.

Yet so many of our public servants forgot all that the moment they began to discuss Coppergate Riverside. Despite the evidence of their own eyes, they decided that Land Securities' dreary design would somehow complement the different glories of Clifford's Tower, the Crown Court and Fairfax House.

Perhaps their vision was clouded by pound signs. After all, this £60 million scheme would make pots of cash for big businesses. And that is good for York because, er, it will create more jobs for shop assistants.

Writing in this paper last month, Land Securities' Richard Akers said: "We have spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds investigating the site, the urban design, architecture, environmental impact, transport issues and archaeology." It is a shame a few quid did not go on an open-top bus tour of York. Land Securities would then have realised their scheme does not aspire to the heights attained by so many of this city's previous architects, and would have withdrawn it, shamefaced.

Now we must put our faith in the hands of that noted aesthete John Prescott. His department will decide whether or not to turn Coppergate over to a public inquiry. Fingers crossed.

Most of us who live here believe York to be special. Turning a large chunk of the Castle area into the sort of dull shopping centre containing the sort of dull shops that can be found from Basingstoke to Bristol will dilute what makes it special.

Architect Tom Adams suggests the car park should become a piazza. In so doing, he compares York to Prague, Rome, Florence, Milan and Venice. These are York's architectural peers - not, as our council apparently believes, Meadowhall or Milton Keynes.