I WAS sorry to read the letter from Phil Fowler ('Protesters don't speak up for all of us', March 6). I do not think support for, or opposition to, the Coppergate scheme is based on who is more intelligent, but rather a sober judgement of what is best for York.

Mr Fowler thinks councillors know best. He has perhaps forgotten that the scheme went before a Government-appointed independent inspector.

After an exhaustive inquiry the inspector concluded: "The design has essentially been driven by commercial considerations... It seems to me that the historic environment should have been the over-riding consideration."

The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector and the scheme was rejected.

The plan for Coppergate is complex and should be judged with light rather than heat. Personal abuse is unhelpful.

So, too, is the view that councillors should make decisions without the participation of the interested public. That is why we have a planning system and public inquiries.

David Rubinstein,

Portland Street, York.

...TRUE, I can't claim to be a member of the "silent majority" any more than Jean Frost (Letters, March 2).

But I can claim to have spent more hours than her hanging around the city centre at all times of the week trying to survey the opinion of the majority on the Coppergate issue to which she alludes.

This doesn't sound like the kind of thing an anti-development mafioso would do, does it?

I'm sure everyone's heard the expression: don't attribute to conspiracy what may well be due to incompetence. And, as astounding as it may be to believe, people can be motivated by what they see as being best for their environment without any more sinister "real reasons behind their campaigns".

I am sorry if marches and petitions bore her - if she has any better ideas, I'm sure the Save The Barbican campaign would love to hear them.

Richard Lane,

Heslington Road, York.

Updated: 11:17 Wednesday, March 10, 2004