THE leader of a campaign group backing York's Coppergate Riverside scheme has accused opponents of a hostile, hysterical approach verging on intimidation.

Trevor Kidd, chairman of Friends of Riverside (FOR), claimed that a number of York shopkeepers had refused to put the group's posters in their windows for fear a brick might be thrown through.

But he later admitted he could not prove Riverside objectors had ever resorted to violence, although he said anti-Riverside graffiti had certainly been painted at times and he felt the way some objectors had expressed their views had been intimidatory.

He also declared that the "silent majority" of people in York supported Land Securities' £60 million scheme to redevelop land between Clifford's Tower and Piccadilly with shops, restaurants and apartments.

Mr Kidd, who lives in Piccadilly, was speaking at the public inquiry into the controversial proposals, which are opposed by a number of different pressure groups and individuals.

He told the inquiry chairman: "It would be a travesty if you were to leave York with the impression that the objections represent the majority.

"You know the objectors are here virtually every day. The seats that count are those that are empty. They represent the rest who are getting on with the city's life - the silent majority."

Mr Kidd said the current "semi-dereliction" in Piccadilly was unworthy of its close proximity to Clifford's Tower. He had concerns about how quickly developer confidence might evaporate when faced by a succession of obstacles placed by people claiming to represent the majority view.

Earlier, two landowners declared they would not willingly sell up their key properties in Piccadilly to make way for the Riverside scheme.

And one of them, Martin Burgess, warned that if efforts were made to compulsorily purchase the two properties, it could force another expensive public inquiry.

Mr Burgess said that if he and Eric Jackson voluntarily sold the former Polar buildings at nos 34 and 46/50, it would make them party to allowing a "massive, inappropriate and unsightly development to blight this city."

And they called on City of York Council to play its part in bringing forward an alternative proposal "worthy of this location."

Updated: 09:02 Thursday, May 23, 2002