Like so many opponents of the King Alfred redevelopment, Peter Salvage (Letters, May 22) relies on misrepresenting the facts.

Contrary to what he says, the current survey does offer an alternative to supporting the three redevelopment options involving flats. You tick the "no" box and write whatever comments you wish in the space provided.

Whatever your views, I would urge readers always to check anything opponents of the proposals say because their information has become so unreliable. For example, the consultants' fees Mr Salvage refers to would not pay for much more than a few months' maintenance let alone a refurbishment of the building.

Margaret Fleet (Letters, May 24) is wrong to say the King Alfred is a "conservation area building". It is next to a conservation area but not in one. That does not stop it being redeveloped but does mean Brighton and Hove City Council would be looking for a high-quality building.

If anyone wants to check anything said or ask any questions, I would urge them to write to me at the council, Kings House, Grand Avenue, Hove, or email me on mike.middleton@brighton-hove.gov.uk

The survey is asking whether people support the council's view that there should be a completely new leisure centre built there, paid for with up to 400 flats, 40 per cent of them affordable homes. It will be very interesting to see what the wider city says.

-Coun Mike Middleton, Chairman, King Alfred Task Group, Brighton and Hove City Council