COUNCILLOR Merrett is woefully mistaken in thinking that his committee's approval of the proposals for Coppergate Riverside is the right decision for York (January 17).

The problem with Coun Merrett and his committee is that they refuse to consider the arguments objectively.

Piccadilly could have been redeveloped years ago if the council had not been so intransigent, refusing to listen to possible alternatives and dismissing any counter arguments as being mischief-making and ill thought out.

Even now, blatant attempts are made to discredit by innuendo any opposition, casting doubt on the integrity of those who are prepared to stand up for what they believe to be a just cause, and deliberately misrepresenting their views.

That the council will stop at nothing to try and get its own way is evidenced by its attack, led by Coun Merrett, on our proposals for a public park on the castle site. As they have always been fully aware, our planning application was intended to open up the debate. It sought to establish the principle that a park was an appropriate use of this land, and it was an application for a change of use only.

It was not a detailed design. Coun Merrett knows this perfectly well, and to criticise our proposals as though it were is highly mischievous.

All those who were present at the meeting of the planning committee when both these applications were considered were appalled at the way the proceedings were manipulated in favour of Land Securities. No wonder that our advance request to tape record the proceedings was refused!

We have always stated that we prefer co-operation to confrontation. Obviously this is not the way the council wish to operate.

P N Crowe,

Chairman,

York Tomorrow,

Stonegate,

York.

...OLIVER Worsley's letter (January 11) advocating that the Coppergate II development scheme should go ahead warrants comment.

Firstly, 20th century local planning systems were not created "for the very first time ever" by the post-war Labour Government. There was a useful Town Planning Act as early as 1909, which very much influenced thinking and action on planning throughout the United States. Furthermore, the Town & Country Planning Act of 1932 was both comprehensive and objective. What the post-war act did, in essence, was to introduce sweeping new powers - producing what many believed to be a bureaucrat's dream.

What many local people find disturbing about the development scheme in question is the apparent rubber-stamping by the elected council of the planning officer's recommendation. It smacks of the appointed tail wagging the democratically elected dog. So much for democracy at work!

It may be that the Coppergate scheme is an improvement on the status quo, but this argument could be made to defend the abomination that became Stonebow House in the 1950s, which continues to be a veritable blot on York's much-admired landscape.

Moreover, it is unworthy of Mr Worsley to say that the Civic Trust is irresponsible to campaign against the scheme when in fact the trust is to be commended for acting with a high degree of responsibility and integrity in seeking a better and long-lasting outcome for the mutual benefit of York's citizens, traders, and visitors.

I do hope that the campaign against the Coppergate II development scheme will be successful.

John Tierney,

Grayshon Drive, Acomb, York.