Cambridge United supporter and U's Net contributor Graham Nurse was moved to respond to Councillor John Hipkin's letter in last Thursday's Cambridge Evening News, and he sent his reply to U's Net as well as the CEN.

Councillor Hipkin's letter:

Be fair to planners who see both sides - a letter from Coun. John Hipkin of the Planning sub-committee

Did Cambridge United lose their match against Bolton because the referee took the "easy way out" as manager Roy McFarland claimed. If you were to ask those who were at the match for their opinion then 99% of United supporters would support McFarland and 99% of Bolton fans would back the referee. But since the Cambridge supporters were in the majority at the game their views must be right mustn't they ? Ergo, we was robbed!

The same reasoning might be applied to the issue of United's planning application for the redevelopment of the Abbey site. 99% of supporters are in favour of it. A similar proportion of allotment holders are against it. However because there are more United supporters than allotment holders their views should prevail shouldn't it ?

Can you imagine what the effects this kind of reasoning would be were it applied to all planning matters ? McDonalds would be causing annoyance to residents and traffic havoc on Coldhams Lane (we turned them down). Burger King would still be frying up at the Texaco petrol station on Huntingdon Road (we faced them down). The Junction's future would be imperilled (we instructed the council to give them better safeguards) and no group of residents anywhere in the city would be free from the threat of some large company insisting that their customers wanted them to be sited slap bang in the middle of a residential area.

The job of the Planning Committee is to look after the interests of all of our citizens and perhaps particularly those who happen to be in a minority or whose appeal is neither powerful nor glamorous. I am not ashamed that we asked United to go back and think again and I am not intimidated by the show of yellow cards at the cup-tie.

I think we can resolve this matter with give and take on both sides and when everyone comes away from the dispute as I hope they will with a sense that we considered each other's interests and together worked it out, perhaps we on the Planning Committee will be thanked rather than maligned for the part we played in resolving the conflict.

Graham Nurse's response, which may be published in the CEN in future:

In his letter of February 3 Councillor Hipkin displayed a warped logic that beggars belief. He plainly was not at the Bolton game or else he would not written such crass and inaccurate comments over the aftermath and as he well knows, to equate the Abbey Stadium planning decision with those concerning McDonalds, Burger King, and the Junction is a travesty of the facts.

Applying his own logic, he will obviously oppose the plans to develop the old cement works as although this will benefit thousands of people, the increase in traffic will adversely affect a few people living in Coldhams Lane. He says he is not ashamed he rejected the United plans. Well, he should be. I always thought that local democracy was supposed to be just that, not a handful of people riding rough shod over thousands.

As for the arrogance of saying "I am not intimidated by the show of yellow cards", he again misses the point. It was not an attempt to intimidate. It was a display of frustration by thousands who are sick to the back teeth of amateur politicians paddling their own canoes and refusing to listen to and act in the interest of those they are supposed to represent.

When he expresses the hope that perhaps the planning committee will be thanked rather than maligned for the part they played it just shows how totally out of touch he is. That is something thousands of people will never do. The Liberal Democrats have been neither liberal or democratic over this matter. From the tone of Councillor Hipkin’s letter they ought to consider changing their names to the Liberal Demagogues.

Finally, in today's CEN there was a welcome letter from Councillor Ben Bradnack Deputy Leader, Labour Group Cambridge City Council:

LIKE many people, including most Labour city councillors, I share the frustration of Cambridge United at the delay which they perceive to be caused by "the council" in approving proposals for improving the Abbey Stadium.

It can do to little alleviate this frustration to explain that councillors on the Planning Committee who have brought about the delay are responsible only to the law and their own consciences, rather than to the party discipline which governs councillors in most of their other functions; and that this lack of collective party position can produce some pretty bizarre results, as it clearly has in this instance.

It may be worth comparing the failure to decide about the Abbey application with the city council's decisive action on Coleridge School.

In the case of Coleridge, because the Labour majority on the council opposed the Tory county council's closure proposals, that opposition became council policy.

The council was thus able to speak with a voice which was loud and clear, and to identify the issues ­ the fragility of the county council's population projections for the south of the city, and the unfairness of the closure proposals for children in Abbey Ward ­ which persuaded the Secretary of State to refuse the closure application.

There is a clear moral to be drawn. When a party has a majority to push through a policy decision, then the interests of the city are likely to be well represented. When, as with the Abbey application, there is no party whip, the well-being of the city as a whole can easily become hostage to sectional concerns.

No one can predict what the Planning Committee will do when they return to this issue in a month's time. But most sensible people in Cambridge both hope and believe that they will do something to salvage the reputation of "the council' by accepting the advice of planning officers that the balance of the public interest lies in approval of the modest improvements proposed by United.

You can e-mail your views to the News on letters@cambridge-news.co.uk but you should keep it concise and include your full name and address.