As convenor of the Heritage Over Vandalism, Actually (HOVA) group opposed to the King Alfred plans, I was intrigued by the letter from Professor David Robson (July 13) expressing his disappointment at the demise of the original scheme with its futuristic skyscrapers up to 38 stories in height.

It is a pity he should choose to brand those of us who are entitled to hold opposing views as "curmudgeons", "wreckers" and "style police".

He even makes the wild supposition that the amended scheme will have brought us cheer. In fact, I have already registered strong objections to this on behalf of our group.

The amended scheme still has towers up to 20 stories in height, similar to some of the highest in the city, such as Chartwell Court and Theobald House, and this time there are no sketches to show what treatment Frank Gehry would given them.

Furthermore, it is proposed that the number of flats should be increased from 438 to 590, which, with the height reduction, means the building density would need to be greater.

In the original scheme, I estimated the population density would be at least 200 people per acre (494 per hectare). When I was borough planning officer, this would have been regarded as much too much, even on a purely residential site, let alone one to be shared with a major new leisure centre. The problems with car parking, disturbance and lack of privacy would be prohibitive.

With the amended scheme, the population density could be even higher - a skeptic might think it was a conspiracy to persuade us to accept the original scheme.

So far, the amended scheme has been approved by the policy committee on behalf of the council as land owner and they have stated that, in due course, the planning committee will have a free hand in making a decision.

It is likely to be well into next year before a planning application is submitted but I urge the councillors concerned to recognise that to put a major residential site on top of a leisure centre of international importance would be a gross overdevelopment of the King Alfred site.

In this respect I am concerned about the hype surrounding the signing of the training pact for the project in the presence of Sports Minister Richard Caborn (The Argus, July 15), which might give the impression to the uninitiated that planning permission has already been granted.

If there were a chance of this I would consider requesting the Government to call in the application and hold a public inquiry.

-Ken Fines, Hove