If councillors on Brighton and Hove City Council environment committee decide to endorse the recommendations contained in the planning advisory note (Pan04) which comes before them tomorrow, they will be promoting on act of civic vandalism almost as destructive as the one contemplated by a previous administration which once advocated the demolition of the squares and terraces of Brunswick Town in Hove to erect blocks of flats. Luckily the public outcry stopped them.

Pan04 outlines plans for the regeneration of Brighton Marina. It contains some of the most momentous planning proposals to come before the council in decades. Chiefly, it advances the idea of an extreme high density urban development containing at least seven tall tower blocks, including a 40-storey skyscraper and another block taller than Sussex Heights. It also includes 20 more tall buildings. The marina was intended by Parliament to be a recreational area for sailing, boating and waterside recreation with a limited residential element. It was never intended, as Parliament made clear, to become a vast housing estate.

The effect of these proposals will be to create a monstrous extension at the eastern end of the city which will, at a stroke, destroy much of Brighton's unique and beautiful physical setting. The famous oblique views of the chalk cliffs from the west will be obliterated as will those from the eastern cliff path. Easterly views along the beach looking towards the marina will also disappear to be replaced by a massive block on the marina's western breakwater.

These chief glories of Brighton's physical setting could soon vanish.

If Pan04 is approved, it will pave the way for a mini-Benidorm with many tower blocks jutting aggressively above the level of the cliffs.

Brighton, set between the Downs and the sea is strapped for building land. It is a city with a growing population and it must abide by its obligation to provide affordable housing.

However, the city is not yet between the devil and the deep blue sea.

There are vast tracts of virgin land between Portslade and Shoreham.

After decades of inactivity the city has at last grasped the opportunity and is now outlining plans for a western seashore building initiative. If the chance is properly taken, we could have a thriving extension of the city with a proper infrastructure specially created to its needs, not a grotesque, inappropriate development in a totally unsuitable site.

The new administration needs to acquire a proper vision for the future, not endorse a blueprint that will destroy Brighton's heritage.

Protesters against the Pan04 will mass outside Hove Town Hall at 3pm tomorrow. They feel aggrieved that their voice has not been heard and there has been no proper consultation with the community to have their say in the future of the marina.

They will be asking councillors to pause and, at the very least, to postpone any decision until the stakeholders most affected have been given a proper say.

  • Derek Granger, ex-president, Kemp Town Society David Morris, Lewes Crescent, Brighton

Jason Parks asks what else do Brighton and Hove City Council have in store for us without any meaningful consultation (Letters, March 17). I can tell Jason that it is more skyscrapers crammed into Brighton Marina, overshadowing the Kemp Town estate and destroying sea and coastal views for ever.

Residents were given only two weeks in December to make comments about Pan04 which has clearly been drawn up by people with little or no knowledge of the marina and who see it as a quick-fix solution to all of Brighton's housing needs.

In 2006 Alan McCarthy, chief executive of the council, gave assurances that relaxing the cliff height restriction in the 1968 Marina Act to enable the Brunswick Development's 40- storey tower was a one-off and it would not set a precedent for future development. Why then has the planning department come up with a masterplan that includes several skyscrapers, including one of 28 storeys, a plan that slavishly reflects the Xplore Living planning application which has yet to come before the planning committee?

Have the planners failed to consult their chief executive as well as the public, residents and berth holders?

Or has the chief executive forgotten the assurances that he gave to the people of Brighton in 2006?

The residents of Brighton Marina have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in the marina and along with berth holders and marina businesses pay the huge cost of maintaining the sea wall. It is outrageous that we have not been involved in the formulation of a masterplan.

Why has the council only taken into account the profit-driven ambitions of the developer? Why does this council pander to them in this way?

Who runs this city - the council or the developers?

  • Andrew Nicholson, Marina Village Brighton

Jason Parks asks about Brighton and Hove City Council's interpretation of well-handled public consultation (Letters, March 17). I believe that council officers have little knowledge of effective public consultation.

Too often the process would be more accurately called "consult and ignore" or "public information" than consultation.

So-called public consultation is also carried out by developers with meaningless survey forms, containing questions such as: "Should new buildings be well designed?"

Some planning documents require the council to state that public consultation has taken place. I doubt whether they are always required to show how they have taken note of the results and, where appropriate, they have amended their plans accordingly.

  • Selma Montford, hon secretary, The Brighton Society Clermont Road Brighton