They say 'take care - you may deliver a poor store development' but the point is that both the plans are 'poor' (to say the very least).
However, they try to cloud this, especially in the final paragraph of their letter where they point out the main differences between the plan they are for and the one they are against.

They say the plan they are against 1) delivers 'no community facilities', 2) is bigger and 3) does not come with a traffic management plan.

What they fail to say is that 1) the community facilities in the plan they approve are so small that they cannot be used for a dedicated youth centre as well as being available for general public use, 2) the difference in size between the two plans is only 20 square metres at 4,460 sq mtr instead of 4,440 (not that much 'bigger' then!), and 3) the traffic management plan that is supposed to make their preferred plan so much better is not only based on incomplete data (ie pedestrian traffic around Dunns Lane was not measured during school lunchbreak) but still ignores the stance of the Humberside Police which is that the route is simply not suitable for HGVs.

The residents of Driffield have said time and again, in this newspaper, in surveys and at public meetings, that they do not want a superstore on the cattle market.

What the ward councillors should have done is listen to the residents and the town council in the first place by helping to have both plans rejected and to find better alternatives for the people who live here.
By not doing that it is they who will be responsible for the damage to the town and resident safety if a superstore is built on the site.

Mark Blakeston, of Eastgate South, Driffield