Stitched up

How can City of York Council claim there has been honest and open consultation when, as soon as another site begins to look remotely like the best candidate, the local authority throws in new arguments as to why it is not suitable? The council cannot possibly claim not to have known about its so-called concerns about the site at Piccadilly possibly not being available in the timeframe for the consent.

It forgets that a petition of 1,079 signatures against the site at Union Terrace has been handed in, but trumpets petitions such as the one with 18 signatures from Marygate. The documents prepared for the Executive's decision are full of errors - all seemingly against the Union Terrace site.

After the Shipton Street fiasco, The Press asked the council to be honest and transparent in its search for a new site. Everyone said that it should not be in a residential area. Choosing a tight 200-metre radius to count the number of houses discriminates against the two large car park sites (Marygate and Nunnery Lane). Currently Arc Light is not in a residential area and its supporters claim success in not having much trouble with its location. To site it at Union Terrace would be to put it in a residential area (despite the council's machinations) and, therefore, it would render these arguments invalid. What we have is another Shipton Street-style stitch-up with a few red herrings thrown in along the way to deflect attention.

Phil Catherall,

Claremont Terrace,

York.

Updated: 09:24 Saturday, April 29, 2006