The Hova Group (Heritage Over Vandalism, Actually!) is opposed to current proposals for the redevelopment of the King Alfred Leisure Centre in Hove. We now have 1,896 individual members plus the Brighton Society and four residents' associations as group members.

The Hove Economic Partnership (The Argus, November 1) considers that major developments planned for Hove, including the King Alfred, "offer a fantastic opportunity for its economic future". They acknowledge that the development put forward by Karis for the King Alfred has come in for heavy criticism from residents, but their chairman, Roger French, said: "The business community needed to look beyond these arguments and make the most of the site's potential."

One might think the battle lines have been truly drawn - but not so. The Hova Group supports the redevelopment of the King Alfred as a modern leisure centre of international status, which would certainly make the most of the site's potential and bring undoubted benefits to the city's economy.

What we strongly object to is the apparent determination of Brighton and Hove City Council as landowner to go much further towards maximising the value of the site and, at the same time, easing the housing crisis by smothering the new leisure centre with a massive residential development that would surely diminish its economic potential.

The issue here is between economic sustainability and financial expediency. The resulting population and accommodation density would, in the heyday of high-rise some 40 years ago, have been regarded as excessive on a purely residential site, let alone one to be shared with another major use.

There would be insurmountable problems of overshadowing, car parking, privacy and disturbance - to say nothing of unsuitable homes in high-rise flats.

Unlike the original scheme, the revised proposals considered by the council in June are not accompanied by illustrations. It is understood, however, that the architect, Frank Gehry, based in Los Angeles, has produced a scale model of the scheme.

We are as concerned as others that representatives of the council are to travel there at the developer's expense but trust the public will have an opportunity to see the latest designs before long and, indeed, that the planning committee will maintain its traditional impartiality when a planning application is at last submitted - supposedly in June next year.

It is to be hoped the developer has taken full account of the public criticism of Gehry's grotesque, futuristic designs, as displayed in his original scheme. Hove seafront is not the place for experiments in the "architecture of deformity".

There is one matter of concern that still needs to be resolved. As a boy, I used to play in a flooded gravel pit on the site before the King Alfred was built (as Hove Marina).

Since then, I believe there has been at least one instance of flooding and also the cracking of one of the swimming pools. I have a map of 1757 that shows that the River Adur, forced eastwards by shingle drift, then had its mouth very near the bottom of Hove Street.

Earlier, the river may have extended even further to the east, so that the King Alfred site would have been part of the actual riverbed.

I do not profess to be an expert but the geophysical suitability of the site for such a massive development needs to be established beyond all doubt.

The Hova Group expects to have its own website - www.hova.org.uk - up and running shortly. It will be updated as this saga progresses.

The council is not expected to reach a decision on a planning application until the end of next year. If they then approve a scheme that we consider unacceptable on economic, environmental or social grounds, we would endeavour to persuade the Government to call in the application and, if necessary, hold a public inquiry.

In 1973, an application for just one block of flats on the site was called in and refused by the Secretary of State.

Ken Fines, Convenor, Hova, Actually!

-Northease Drive, Hove