What a shame City News has no letters page, unlike The Argus. How else can one counter Brighton and Hove City Council leader Ken Bodfish and his views on a National Park?

The March issue sports a fine picture of the Chattri Memorial on the Downs - surely enough to inspire without a caveat in sight?

But we are invited to turn to page five and the words of Councillor Bodfish. After a delightfully green preamble, the council leader shows his true colours.

He is bewildered so many sites on the urban fringe have been included in the National Park boundaries, along with green lungs within Brighton itself. Such a boundary, he says, would constrict the growth of the city in perpetuity.

Coun Bodfish seems to want a South Downs "lite" - all the political benefits of a National Park with none of those tricky green bits that get in the way of development. But weren't we told city status meant differently?

Glancing back at Opinion of July 31, 2000 - before city status was granted - I saw a letter from Simon Fanshawe headed "City bid aims to make Brighton good, not big".

If this was a genuine sentiment on behalf of the council, its current policy on a National Park boundary is woefully inconsistent.

There is a widely mistaken belief the South Downs will definitely become a National Park, of whatever shape. In fact, this is not the case.

Speaking to the consultants, I learnt the truth. John Prescott instructed the Countryside Commision - now Agency - to "look again" at the matter. Even now, it could be rejected at a public inquiry.

The council should have known better. It should have argued for the best National Park we could get, instead of endangering the concept by attrition.

-Peter Poole, Hove