THE heat has never gone away from Coppergate II - and now the issue is once more bubbling away like mad.

The proposed £60 million development has rarely been out of the headlines in York, and it earns more headlines today with news of an investigation into the suggestion that the proper planning process might not have been followed.

City of York Council is investigating whether or not its councillors gave the controversial scheme the go-ahead without being shown all the official reports.

Steve Galloway, leader of the city's Liberal Democrats, says he previously sought assurances that all available information had been laid before councillors in November, and was told that this was indeed so.

Now Coun Galloway urges anyone within the council to tell him - or this newspaper - if they know anything more about the allegations made in an anonymous letter to the Evening Press.

We welcome any attempt to sort out this difficult matter and an investigation will certainly clear the air. Complete openness is vital on an issue of such lasting importance. Coppergate II, if and when it is eventually built, will irrevocably change the face of York. Whether or not such a development will be good for York remains a topic of heated debate, and feelings are still running high, as indicated by the very many letters we continue to receive on the controversial proposal.

Elsewhere on this page, David Merrett, City of York Council's executive member for planning and transport, puts the council's case for Coppergate II. His comments - written before today's fresh twist to the story - show that the council firmly believes the development will be good for York. Coun Merrett points out that the plans have changed to incorporate concerns which have already been raised.

This remains a matter of great importance for the future of York and Coun Merrett's comments add to the debate in a constructive manner. While this discussion seems to have been rumbling on for ever, the right decision has to be made, and all sides deserve a full hearing.

Updated: 10:51 Wednesday, January 10, 2001