It is extraordinary that a local businessman should want to 'extend' a feature from his own business to include a new structure which will be a landmark in itself without being adorned with any further distractions for drivers. I feel Mr Schofield's offer to fund a statue of an angel to be placed on the viaduct is reminiscent of a scenario which occurred over 100 years ago.

In 1903 when City Square was being planned, a statue of Matthew Murray was intended to be placed in the square but a local Leeds councillor made a death-bed offer to fund a statue of James Watt instead. The offer was accepted and Murray was overlooked. Hence a statue of a man who did nothing for the city of Leeds except sell steam engines, and who worked tirelessly to thwart Murray's ambitions for the Leeds engineering industry has stood in City Square ever since.

Likewise, the viaduct should still be there 100 years from now, probably when Union Industries has disappeared, so for this reason alone it should bear the name of one of Leeds's great engineers, and be a reflection of the history and heritage of Leeds.

I would sincerely ask all Leeds councillors, MPs, and anyone involved in the naming of this bridge to consider the matter very carefully.

Robert Lawrence, President, East Leeds History and Archaeology Society