For any developer, it costs money to develop a viable commercial scheme.

With another rejection of a replacement for Anston House, this city has again sent out a warning that you are wasting your time and money, The message seems to be that this city is closed for business.

I assume the developer followed the running brief for this site, tied in with the commercial realisation of it being a profitable scheme.

Again, I hear of three elected councillors abstaining and sitting on the fence.

No wonder members of Government are relaxing the planning laws – who could blame them?

The existing Anston House is a blot on our city landscape and a negative reflection for visitors, as it can be seen entering the city by road and rail.

James Greed, Wheatfield Way, Moulsecoomb

Two views from the last planning meeting

Valerie Paynter describes the somewhat chaotic proceedings at a meeting of Brighton and Hove City Council’s planning committee on April 24 in a Soapbox column (The Argus, April 27).

At a planning committee meeting on March 13, the Anston House site was withdrawn from the agenda as the Brighton Society had proved the forecasted overshadowing of the Rotunda and the Rose Garden in Preston Park was inaccurate.

Savills then redrew shadow plotting, thereby demonstrating the previous plots were inaccurate.

The public was never given a chance to comment on the new plots, which showed that the outside seating at the Rotunda and the Rose Garden, normally enjoyed throughout the year, would be miserable places for seven months of the year.

The Brighton Society had no option but to send graphics to councillors at the last minute. It was not so much “consult and ignore” on this occasion – more a “failure to inform” both councillors and the public.

Selma Montford, hon secretary, The Brighton Society

Valerie Paynter refers to my apparent “rant” about the amount of lobbying to which planning committee members have recently been subjected.

She also objects to my pausing a committee meeting last week so that officers could evaluate the extraneous material which was being waved about.

Had Ms Paynter watched closely, it would have been apparent that I consulted the committee’s lawyer, who had addressed members about this subject at an earlier meeting. Indeed, the committee’s printed protocol asks members to declare instances of lobbying.

Last week, the lawyer said that the correct course would indeed be to pause proceedings for these documents and brochures to be clarified. Had we not done so, the legal implications could have been considerable.

Ms Paynter would herself do better to pause – before pressing send.

Christopher Hawtree, chair of the planning committee, Brighton and Hove City Council