As convenor of the Heritage Over Vandalism, Actually (HOVA) Group I have been waiting for a pictorial representation of the latest version of the King Alfred redevelopment scheme.

The one now published (The Argus, January 29) does nothing to allay my concern that, although the towers would be reduced in height, the 35 per cent increase in the number of proposed flats to 590 would produce a massive over-development at an alarming density.

Housing must always come top of the planning agenda but there needs to be the right balance between flats and larger houses with gardens required especially by families bringing up children.

I recall well the imbalance that occurred in the heyday of high-rise when I was a planner some 40 years ago. Of course, the King Alfred is not the site for such houses but one needs to consider the optimum deployment of limited financial resources across the city region.

These problems would be manifest without sharing the site with the vital new leisure centre we support.

Its economic sustainability would hardly benefit from being smothered by another major land use.

However, having done my best to interpret the proposals, I must condemn the quality of the architectural model as depicted in your article.

I can only regard it as vague and amateurish - not the work expected of "the world's greatest architect".

In the first place, it shows a seagull's view, not a street-level human's. Then, it shows precious little detail and we are even told Frank Gehry's famous "swirls" are yet to be added. But I never expected to have to criticise the crude design of the leisure centre itself.

If I remember correctly, the present King Alfred (then Hove Marina) was designed in 1938 by our borough surveyor, Thomas Humble.

This art deco building served the town well and we deserve a replacement of international status from an architect with such a reputation.

On March 21, my deputy convenor, architect Nimrod Ping, and I are due to have a presentation of the latest scheme by Heather James, community liaison and communications co-ordinator of Karis Holdings, the potential developers.

I trust Heather will be in a position to communicate a more intelligible depiction of the project and I hope she can arrange a meeting with architect Frank Gehry when he makes a rare visit to Britain.

Of course, if any of the 1,852 individual members or five corporate members of HOVA consider our group has fulfilled its role by helping to bring down the Tin Can Towers and do not wish to continue opposing the scheme, they can have their entries deleted.

They should write to our Secretary, Anita Bransbury, 22 Gladstone Road, Portslade BN41 1LJ. On the other hand, HOVA will happily welcome new members.

-Ken Fines, Hove