At Easter 2006 The Argus reported news of the district valuer's verdict on the financial viability of the King Alfred redevelopment proposals.

He judged it as only borderline viable. He also suggested that Brighton and Hove City Council should consider contributing towards the cost of the project - so no free sports centre. He thought the whole development plan was too big an ask of the developer.

On October 5, 2006, the council agreed in a confidential session of the policy and resources committee to pay for the building of Affordable Housing Block 3 if, following construction tendering and another financial viability test, a need was demonstrated.

Notes on that confidential session, in the minutes of that meeting, are available on the council's website and confirm the council's agreement.

Following resubmission of the new planning application with expensively redesigned perimeter blocks, the granting of planning permission, the loss of three planning officers and the ousting of the Labour administration that had so wanted it, things went quiet.

What was going on behind the wall of silence?

On April 24 my public question to full council about its possible financial contribution was censored and I was publicly rebuked for trying to put confidential material into the public realm.

Minutes published on the council's website were clearly not confidential.

The question of what the council is, or is not, prepared to pay towards building the King Alfred is important.

Now it is reported that ING and Karis will have concluded their review of the scheme's financial viability in the next few weeks and Josh Arghiros, of Karis, is quoted as saying the viability of the scheme was looking "very shaky" (The Argus, July 2).

It was already shaky when the district valuer looked at it in 2006.

Does this cue the moment the council will be expected to cough up substantial "enabling" finance? The question is how much and covering how much more than Affordable Housing Block 3? Soon after her selection as Conservative leader of the council, Councillor Mary Mears was asked about the King Alfred and told The Argus: "We have to make this work."

My heart sank. I'm sure that of ING began to sing and do its figures.

  • Valerie Paynter, saveHOVE, PO Box 521, Hove

To quote Josh Arghiros: "I believe there is no reason why the sports centre cannot remain as part of the scheme - it is integral to it."

I should hope so. All that was needed in the first place was a replacement for the existing, run-down centre. If Brighton and Hove City Council had done running repairs rather then let it fall into its present state then the overblown monstrosity that is proposed would not be required.

Running repairs seem to be dirty words to the council. Witness the dilapidated bandstand along the seafront, the West Pier and the seafront in general.

  • Susan Funnell, Richardson Road, Hove

I was absolutely distraught to read that the King Alfred "Tin Can Towers" development is in serious doubt. This cannot be allowed. There must be some way of destroying the old-fashioned elegance of Hove seafront. We simply cannot allow such style and quality of taste to prevail in our modern culture - a culture akin to germs growing in a petri dish.

Perhaps instead we could smother Hove seafront with rusty iron sculptures - rusty iron seems popular in this area. Surely some way can be found of squandering money on some form of meaningless eyesore?

I am now so depressed I must take myself off to Eastbourne, or some equally pleasant place, to spend the morning laughing my head off.

  • Martin Boyask, New Church Road, Hove