It is hard to work out quite what Beryl Samson is alluding to (Letters, January 31) because my letter (January 22), which she attacks, was not about the King Alfred opinion survey as she suggests.

Perhaps explaining my quote three days later, when the poll was reported, would be helpful.

It really is "unrealistic to expect people to have the whole picture about the planning application if they have never looked at it".

By their nature random telephone surveys catch all sorts and include people who can't read or write, those who avoid newspapers, only watch Big Brother, or those who have little idea of what this issue is about beyond what is said in gossip.

One lady polled is apparently looking forward to having a cinema on the King Alfred site. There are no cinemas in the current plans.

Developers need people to stay out of their way and not inform themselves too deeply. This is a gamble they expect to win.

The evaluation of planning applications requires processes and methods akin to those used by courts, lawyers and the police.

It is about gathering and weighing evidence for and against, and compliance with policy documents and laws. It's not a game where the greatest number of letters for or against "wins" (I hope).

People will be punished at the polls for getting us in this mess, no doubt, but Brighton and Hove City Council has to worry about a legal challenge if planning permission is granted and that takes precedence.

We have democratic freedoms not always valued or used. Not every country has the right to be involved in planning issues. We do.

We have the right to inspect all the papers and plans submitted, whether by neighbours or big developers.

We have the right to contribute proofs and evidence and counterclaims to challenge an application during the public consultation phase.

And The Argus has the right to publish all our views, including those of Beryl Samson.

Democracy: use it or lose it.

Valerie Paynter
saveHOVE,
POBox 521, Hove