HOW easy it is to rewrite history and use it selectively.

Our opponents claim that the opposition to the revised Barbican scheme was caused by "overdevelopment". They conveniently forget, of course, there were always opponents who objected to any private investment on the Barbican site or to the sale of the land for private development.

This was not the position of 44 Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors who knew the council could not afford to modernise failing pools and leisure facilities or continue to subsidise the Barbican to the tune of £0.75 million a year.

When the developers produced a revised scheme, which gave York residents an extra £1.4 million on the scheme inherited from Labour, were we supposed to reject it? I can well imagine the response from the media and our opponents if we had done that.

This revised scheme was approved by the Regional Government Office and at no point during the judicial review process instigated by Save Our Barbican was the planning decision questioned.

The small number of objectors to the Barbican scheme were able to frustrate the needs of the residents of York by using an outdated appeal system dependent on the vagaries of the time available in the judicial system. The only people able to use this system are the very rich or those so poor that they get legal aid.

Where's the justice for the overwhelming majority of people? The Lib Dem view is that there should be a right of appeal within the planning system which everyone could use not just the privileged few.

So, whatever your views on the rights of the objectors, they have succeeded in costing York residents millions of pounds. Nevertheless, the new proposals would provide three public access pools for future generations.

Coun Keith Orrell,

Executive member for leisure & heritage,

City of York Council,

Trent Avenue,

Huntington, York.

Updated: 09:55 Monday, January 30, 2006