Dr Duncan Campbell either does not know, or chooses to forget that the Coppergate II scheme was prepared by the developers to meet the requirements of the planning brief (Letters May 5).

That document set out broadly how the site should be developed and what should be provided. The planning brief must be taken fully into account by the planning committee when reaching a decision.

It was prepared by the Labour administration and adopted by the city council in 1992. At the time, the principle of developing the car park area was supported by many of those now objecting, while the architectural competition left no room for doubt about the scale of the proposals. Planning committees are quasi-judicial in that they make decisions against a set of existing policies which, in this case, included the planning brief.

I voted in favour of Coppergate II because, having listened to all the debate, it met the criteria set out. Like many people I should have preferred to have turned the space next to Clifford's Tower into car-free, public open space, but that was not part of the scheme and was never suggested during the original consultation exercise.

A planning committee has no authority to modify a scheme during the hearing unless the developer agrees. In this case he did not.

So, don't blame the Liberal Democrats for Coppergate II, blame Labour. The scheme originated with Labour and the Liberal Democrats had no power to change it or turn it down.

Coun Quentin Macdonald,

City of York Council Planning Committee,

Church Lane,

Nether Poppleton, York.

Updated: 10:36 Wednesday, May 07, 2003