The Green Party must be tackled on its support for the King Alfred towers.

I was glad to see concerns raised by residents Mark Jones and J Denman (Letters, August 21).

The Greens have put several motions to the council of a genuinely green nature, concerning the Iraq war, water fluoridation and genetically modified crops.

They deserve thanks for this. However, such motions are not binding on Government policy and are not why councillors were elected.

The job of the council is to administer local services and decide on planning applications.

Green credentials cannot rest on political motions but must be demonstrated through everyday practice.

In the Green Party's pre-election newspaper Greenleaf, then candidate (now Councillor) Richard Mallender said: "Given that the council cannot even get waste collection right for two-storey houses, how on earth will it cope with a 16-storey tower block?"

This question is even more relevant of a 38-storey block.

However, the paper was not distributed in Hove.

Mr Mallender also said: "Following several recent applications for 'skyscraper-type' blocks, Labour has agreed to the Greens' demands for a tall building strategy."

Karis Developments has a city-wide agenda, encompassing both Brighton and Hove.

Councillors make decisions for the entire unitary authority but the Greens oppose lesser monoliths in their own wards while backing far higher structures beyond.

Would the Greens vote for the Tin-Can Towers on the Brighton station site? They were vocal opponents of the Sainsbury's superstore so I would imagine not.

Although the station site is far more urban than Hove, I would not support these towers there either.

The case against has been well-argued by many residents and the Greens must listen if they are still a democratic body.

Otherwise, the tall buildings strategy will be a complete joke and Karis will have the last laugh.

-Peter Poole, Hove