As a retired Brighton borough planning officer, I must applaud the "scathing attack" on the current King Alfred proposals launched by architect Nick Lomax, who helped design our award-winning Jubilee Library (The Argus, March 15).

I agree absolutely that the density of the scheme is far too high for the size of the site. In all my planning career, I have never come across anything as gross.

In respect of density, height and design, the massive development proposed would be totally inappropriate for Hove and, in particular, for the seafront, where the rich architectural heritage has been recognised by the designation of the series of maritime conservation areas extending from Brunswick to Sackville Gardens.

In turn, density leads to excessive population, with unacceptable traffic generation and a demand for infrastructure which may well not be met.

In my objections to Brighton and Hove City Council I have also expressed concerns about the lowlying, exposed nature of the site at a time of climate change.

I recently wrote of the effect high winds could have on the tower blocks with their contorted shapes (Letters, January 25).

It is ironic that only this month, with nowhere near hurricane-force winds, damage was caused to the roof of a building of just one storey further along Kingsway.

KD Fines
HOVA Group, Northease Drive, Hove

In all the coverage of the proposed King Alfred development - including numerous letters - I have yet to see any explanation of why the grandiose development of the flats actually needs to be right next to the swimming pool.

It is unfortunate that the existing swimming pool was built so close to the seafront as it benefits so little from the sea views and does not even give access directly from the promenade.

However, if the only way to finance the building of a new one is from the development of 751 residential units, there is no essential reason for them to be sited next to it, particularly as their proposed height would still afford splendid sea views from almost any location.

So why can't another site farther back from the seafront be found for this development?

Such a site - or multiple sites - could not only offer more suitable surroundings but also be less costly, thereby making the "affordable"

units even more affordable.

Peter Reeves
St Keyna Avenue, Hove

We are at last coming to the crunch moment of this revolting King Alfred saga and it is sad that it has become not a planning decision but a political one.

One side cares very much about the appearance of our city while Simon Burgess and his allies appear not to care less, so long as they don't have to see it every day.

I must add a comment concerning the undue haste with which the planning committee proposes to deal with this planning application - a consultation period until March 21 and a decision to be made on March 23.

Let us be frank - this is not Brighton and Hove City Council's usual way of doing things and in this case it is making the whole process a political matter.

The council and Karis are obviously eager to deal with this matter before the local elections, as they are well aware that if a change of council control were to take place, the whole situation concerning this development could change.

On the other hand, for a council which over the years has bombarded the electorate with literature concerning the importance of local democracy, I would have thought such an important decision as this one could be helped by awaiting the electorate's democratic response.

Hopefully the electorate will have their say on May 3 and any councillors, particularly so-called Green councillors, who vote for this scheme should not hold on to their seats on our city's council.

Kenneth Smith
Lansdowne Place, Hove

With the proposed King Alfred costing £290 million, can somebody please explain the proposed 40 per cent low-cost housing to be provided?

A revised figure of £160,000 was recently quoted for a "low-cost" flat in the development. A qualified nurse earning £21,000 and having a mortgage seven times his or her annual earnings could afford £147,000. This would leave a deposit of £13,000 approximately.

With property prices rising, by the time these flats are built, the price of the low-cost housing will probably have risen to £200,000.

PR Edwards
Falmer Road,
Woodingdean