I MAKE no apology for being classed as one of Mr Cordock's "hardcore of intelligent self-appointed spokespeople" (Letters, February 25) who regularly voice their concerns over what many see as inappropriate over-development in York.

A ring road would have by now been driven through Bootham Park, half of Gillygate would have been demolished, even the city walls would no longer be with us if, in the past, Mr Cordock's "mafia" had kept their heads down and not made a fuss.

He casts doubt on the ability of councillors to evaluate proposals put to them. I suggest that councillors are elected to carry through policies which have the backing of the electorate.

This involves not only the consideration of planning law which particular planning applications may raise, but an assessment of wider issues of public concern which are often not reflected in their own officers' recommendations.

This is not to say that councillors always get it right. Clearly they do not. Neither do the officers.

Objectors, if they are to be taken seriously, have to research the topic under review, and present a well argued case to committee, if they are to have any chance of success. The committee will then listen.

There have been recent cases where objectors' concerns have been fully acknowledged by committee members, but have been rejected with regret because they could not be sustained under planning law. So the objectors do not always get their own way, far from it.

However, Mr Cordock must surely agree that developers who deliberately propose development just under the threshold for the provision of affordable housing, or divide sites to artificially reduce the number of units proposed thereby avoiding their obligations, are hardly to be held up as examples of public virtue.

Philip Crowe,

Clifton, York.

Updated: 11:55 Wednesday, March 03, 2004