As Convenor of Heritage Over Vandalism, Actually (HOVA), a non-political group opposed to the King Alfred scheme, I am sorry I gave E Kelly (Letters, October 12) the impression I would like to curtail the right of free speech and to "Hove up" the group.
My main concern is that the King Alfred scheme is appraised on planning principles and not on a particular party-political doctrine.
As a retired planning officer, I'm anxious about the "deal" referred to by the director of Hok Sport (The Argus, August 27), whereby, the sports centre would be "handed over to Brighton and Hove free of charge" - provided planning permission is granted for 754 flats.
Such a scheme would be highly intrusive to the much-loved Hove seafront and could even destroy the image of Hove, which contrasts with, but still complements, the raffish image of Brighton.
This so-called deal would be contrary to all sound planning principles.
I make no apology for not confining membership of HOVA to Hove residents. Many people love the town, whether they are former Hoveites or visitors.
As for my thinking that "the great majority of our citizens are opposed to the King Alfred plans", of course, I haven't conducted a referendum. But it is reasonable to draw tentative conclusions from statistical samples, such as the number of letters opposing it printed in The Argus and the opinions of people one meets.
In fact, I can't remember meeting anyone who has expressed support for the scheme.
-Ken Fines, Hove
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article