In my view, Adam Trimingham is quite right to express reservations about the proposed new town between Henfield and Hurstpierpoint (The Argus, June 5).

At a recent Brighton and Hove Economic Partnership meeting we heard a presentation from the developers behind the project. One figure in particular concerned me.

They estimated that 80% of the population would either work in Brighton and Hove or visit it on a regular basis.

This would have huge implications for us as a city and, in particular, on our transport network.

As Adam rightly points out, trains between Brighton and London are already overcrowded and, despite my best campaigning efforts, a second Brighton mainline is not likely in the foreseeable future.

Burgess Hill, some five miles away, would be the nearest train station, meaning that most commuters would have to drive there to pick up a train – hardly the environmental “One Planet” solution the developers are claiming.

Similarly, the A23 is already close to full capacity – just look at the tailbacks as far back as Pyecombe on a sunny summer weekend.

The developers spoke about shuttle buses and park and ride, but these still have to use the same roads as everyone else. There is talk of a new A23 junction at Hickstead but who would pay for this and how would this help the roads into Brighton? Has the Highways Agency even been consulted?

There is a pressing need for new homes around Brighton and Hove – so-called “Greater Brighton” – and so it would be wrong to reject new development plans out of hand. However, at this stage, when there is such a lack of detail from the developers, I am sceptical.

Councillor Geoffrey Theobald, Conservative for Patcham ward on Brighton and Hove City Council