I am writing not only as an 80-year-old native of Hove but as a former borough planning officer of Brighton and the author of A History Of Brighton And Hove.

The Argus has done our city a service in publishing a photomontage of just one of the four proposed residential towers as it would be seen from St Aubyns, a street in the old Hove Conservation area, typical of our Victorian heritage.

It illustrates the devastation the plan would cause.

Although retired for 20 years, I like to think I am remembered for my belief in conservation and public participation in planning.

Both principles would be violated by the apparent pre-emptive decision of councillors at a special meeting to back the scheme - several months before the likely submission of a planning application.

I do not deny the importance of innovative architecture, of which many examples have enriched the heritage of the city over the years.

One such in Hove was Alfred Waterhouse's town hall in Church Road built in 1882 and destroyed by fire in 1966.

In a more modest way, the King Alfred Leisure Centre itself, as built in 1938 (as Hove Marina) and, as I recall, largely designed in-house by the borough surveyor TR Humble, reflected the innovative art deco style now enjoying something of a revival.

The demolition of the King Alfred is probably inevitable because of its condition.

However, whatever the prospects of financial gain for the council, its replacement must enrich the heritage of the city.

I agree the development might attract more visitors but they will flock to Hove seafront not to admire "one of the most stunning and inspiring projects in the world" but to stand and gawp, just as they used to at circus freaks and public hangings and still do at disaster sites such as Ground Zero.

Visitors do not have to live with the architecture of deformity. Unless good sense prevails, this could bring the city scathing ridicule.

-Ken Fines, Hove