Having watched the proceedings of the recent full meeting of Brighton and Hove City Council, I was surprised to read Councillor Paul Elgood's remarks in your article "Proposed change to new park boundary" (The Argus, October 15).

When the Green-promoted motion to extend the boundaries of the proposed National Park was discussed, Coun Elgood did not bother to express an opinion.

Also, following the pattern he established when the King Alfred development plans were being discussed in the powerful policy and resources committee, he left before a vote was taken.

Leaderless, his hapless two Lib Dem colleagues clearly did not know which way to vote on the South Downs motion so just sat on the fence.

To suggest, as Coun Elgood does, that councillors who force a change to previous decisions are undemocratic and irresponsible is cant of the worst kind.

Since the decision on the original National Park boundaries was taken last year, the democratic process has allowed the electorate a chance to pass its verdict on the performance of the previous council.

Coun Elgood's party was given a swift kick in the electoral fundament by the voters of Brighton and Hove.

The Greens made clear in their election manifesto that they opposed the proposed boundaries and would fight to extend them to include more fringe areas.

The electorate clearly liked what they read and heard on the doorstep and doubled the number of Greens on the council.

With this democratic mandate, it would have been irresponsible for Green councillors not to have pressed their motion.

who would almost certainly have voted for the Green motion.

The only anti-democratic and irresponsible move would be a rejection of the Green motion to extend the National Park boundaries in the policy and resources committee on the casting vote of the Lib Dems - that's if Coun Elgood actually decides to vote at all.

-Geoffrey Bowden, Kemp Town, Brighton