PLANNING the future of our fair city is such a minefield you have to feel sympathy for those charged with the task. There is an argument York suffers from a form of “historic blight” because no one can suggest changing anything without someone complaining it will spoil our exceptional heritage.

Indeed, one of the realities of living in a “nice place” is that people are likely to oppose altering it. York is far from unique in this, as anyone who mentions building new supermarkets in Malton will soon discover.

We should perhaps be grateful not only for that niceness, but also for the fact people still want to develop here, for there are once thriving cities crying out for the kind of projects that cause so much controversy in York.

That’s why the word “balance” is used so much by those responsible for future planning, often meaning balancing economic wellbeing against conservation – though at times the ability required appears to be that of a high-wire tightrope artist traversing the Niagara Falls in a gale.

Add a generous helping of grease on the wire, and the requirement to do the crossing on a unicycle while juggling, and you get somewhere near the mastery of balance required for the present debate on shopping in York.

For it’s not just about commerce versus conservation; it’s about whether the expansion of out-of-town shopping will kill off the city centre.

The stand-off between city centrists and the out-of-towners was put into sharp focus last week, when the owners of the Coppergate Centre said they would withdraw plans to redevelop the Castle-Piccadilly area, and sell Coppergate as well, if plans for a new shopping complex at Monks Cross – plans on which York City Football Club’s future seems to depend – were approved by councillors.

That opposition is based on the anticipated impact of new out-of-town shops on city-centre trading, but heritage issues haven’t gone away. Some conservationists oppose the Monks Cross scheme because they also fear city-centre shops will be undermined, and the centre as a whole will therefore lose its vitality.

However, there are other conservation issues. On the opposing side from Monks Cross we have, as mentioned, the possible redevelopment of the Castle-Piccadilly area. Anyone remember the fate of the so-called Coppergate II plans, which a government inspector concluded threatened historic Clifford’s Tower? Will the new proposals keep all the conservationists happy?

I haven’t even gone into the fact local sports clubs don’t all agree about what’s best for them. I wouldn’t like to have to find a balanced position in that lot, but since I’m not making the decisions I suppose I can express my own, undoubtedly unbalanced views on the situation.

First, even speaking as someone who hates shopping, I’d say the top priority has got to be to safeguard the city centre. It is undoubtedly a gem, and one which I believe is sufficiently special to survive even the growing challenge of online competition in a reasonably healthy form.

But our leaders cannot simply disregard out-of-town shopping, so useful to anyone who wants to buy in bulk or simply park for free, or the need to consider York City’s future.

They must find the balance between the competing commercial and conservation claims and try to meet our city’s diverse needs – including shopping, sport and heritage – without inviting disaster. My point, I suppose, is that the biggest potential disaster in this case would be ruining the city centre, but our civic leaders can’t allow that concern to completely dominate their debates. The best of luck with that balancing act.

• KEEPING one’s balance in the snow was such a challenge that some pedestrians forsook the pavement to walk in the road on Sunday. That was naughty but understandable, unlike the cyclist who, presumably out of bad habit, sped off the clear road onto the snow and slush-choked pavement and, to his evident consternation, came to a grinding halt. Just shows, sometimes it’s best to follow the rules.