I MUST respond to Ingrid Barton (Letters, November 3) in which she is critical of our revised plans for Coppergate II.

She asks: "Why can't they give the people of York the chance to choose what they want?"

The answer is that the extensive public consultation conducted by the City of York Council earlier this year brought approximately 400 responses - in favour and against our original plans. One has only to look at the substantial revisions to the plans now re-submitted to the council to see how public opinion has helped us re-shape the scheme.

The citizens have indeed had a proper say and we have listened and responded positively, re-modelling some elements of the design, including the Piccadilly building and the re-design of the controversial roof.

The design of the scheme has been a long and involved process which has taken a number of complex issues into account. It has been designed by internationally acclaimed architects Terry Farrell & Partners who were appointed after winning the public architectural competition in the early 1990s.

Terry Farrell has a good understanding of the importance of the urban and historic context to city centre developments. For example, where the Coppergate development faces Clifford's Tower, the new elevations are low-key and understated to complement the surrounding historic buildings such as Fairfax House and the museum buildings and provide a suitable backdrop to the tower itself.

Conversely, Piccadilly provided the opportunity for a more exciting and contemporary design. I must, however, agree with Ingrid Barton that it is important that we get it right in the historic centre of York.

As a long-term investor in York (we have owned property in the city since the early 1960s) it has always been and will always be, our wish to play a part in the city's future prosperity without detracting from the richness of its past.

Richard Akers,

Senior Development Surveyor,

Land Securities Properties Ltd,

Strand,

London.

... I agree with D & C Wardell (Letters, November 7) the new-look Coppergate scheme will be an eyesore.

I too thought the buildings at the rear of the 'tram' looked rather strange. The Wardells' description is perfect! I have asked council representatives many times

why the Castle area cannot be made into a park only to be met with shrugged shoulders. If we must have more shops, and the backers seem to have a

bottomless purse, then why do they not develop the old Co-op site across the river?

It is not a sensitive area - look at the Viking Moat House Hotel. The amount of visitors who arrive by train or stay in hotels over the river must be vast. I wonder what they think of George Hudson Street as they pass by en route to the 'top heavy' side of the bridge?

Small, individual shops are being squeezed out by the giants. Most places have got the message - put the giants outside the city for free and easy parking.

Let the city centre thrive on businesses that are attractive to visitors. After all, visit one Debenhams or M&S store and you have seen them all!

Having moved out of the city I shop at Malton and Easingwold, the nearest to the city I shall get is Monks Cross, it's bliss to shop at one's ease for everything.

Pauline R Wallis,

Manchester House,

Sheriff Hutton,

York.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.