Chris Gilbert of QED said the Brighton station site development had been widely discussed (The Argus, February 16).
The only reason for those discussions is that objectors have arranged public meetings which should have been organised by the developer and Brighton and Hove City Council.
The same objectors pressured the council into displaying the model for more than two days in Brighton so people could see what a truly mediocre proposal is being put forward.
Finally, and most importantly, great numbers of the public have written to The Argus and I do not remember seeing any letters in support.
Brighton Urban Design and Development (Budd) has gone through the developer's plans very carefully and compared them with the council's plan for the station site.
This process has highlighted serious discrepancies. For example, one would think the developer would at least be able to come up with a supermarket that was the right size but no, theirs is bigger than allowed for in the council's plan.
The developer has also understated the number of additional car parking places by 200. The scheme does not fulfil the requirement to move away from the dominance of the car and will create traffic chaos.
The council has claimed the retail element (Sainsbury's) is essential to make the scheme financially viable.
This is not only contrary to government planning guidance, it also is untrue. The council's own consultants concluded there were alternative ways of funding development of the site.
Government figures show when a supermarket opens it has an adverse affect on local business with job losses and small traders closing down.
You only have to look at the disastrous effect the new Sainsbury's has had on the Lewes Road and the effect of the new Churchill Square has had on Western Road to see what will happen to the London Road if a massive new supermarket with a car park opens up the hill.
Budd has sent a letter detailing all these points to the council. The full text is available on its web site (buddbrighton.org).
What is being proposed is not the "exemplar of 21st-Century urban development" claimed by the developer but an object lesson in what to avoid.
The council should listen to the people who would have to live with it and refuse the application.
-Richard Paul-Jones, Coleman Street, Brighton
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