The Omega Institute, an enviromental think-tank for green science and technology, has been following the public debate on the seafront Gehry towers project with close interest.

We are concerned with issues of public safety, environmental impact and serious financial costs to the local community.

The King Alfred site is the part of Hove most exposed to weather and violent storm surges. Putting tall buildings there is a serious mistake.

Global warming and climate change mean, sometime in the next 20 years, Brighton and Hove will be hit by several large-scale storms of class two and above and at least one class four storm.

Gehry's present design could not survive such a storm. Winds in excess of 200kph would suck the walls off the building frame and residents would need emergency evacuation.

But the towers are also vulnerable to severe sea flooding. A storm surge, 13m above normal water levels, devastated the east coast of England in 1953, killing more than 1,300 people.

A class four storm in the next 20 years would probably create a tidal surge up the English Channel in excess of 20m. In these circumstances, disaster and tragedy are inevitable. Existing Hove seafront buildings would also be vulnerable.

We note the architects were not asked by Josh Arghiros to provide any flood defences or protection for the towers and, when we questioned representatives of the architects about this, we were told they had not been included as, "it would cost too much" which would result in, "substantially reducing the profit margins on the development".

It appears Karis has deliberately avoided providing sea defences for the project. It also appears Brighton and Hove City Council will have to provide and pay for these defences.

Gill Mitchell, her environment department and most of the voting councillors appear to have been entirely unaware of these issues.

Why did her department not do any proper research into these issues and brief the councillors who voted on the project?

Supposedly committed to environmentally- friendly policies, this council has ignored expert advice and opinion on the environmental issues this project raises.

Councillors who voted for this project should justify their decision publicly and in detail and reveal the advice and discussion they had before voting in favour of this potential tax burden and environmental hazard.

  • Michael Scott, communications and media The Omega Institute, Brighton