Your report (The Argus, June 6) about Brighton and Hove City Council's conservation strategy must make one ask how much store can be set by such a document.

In recent months, we have seen off-the-peg structures foisted upon the site of the much-lamented Essoldo

Theatre on North Street and - contrary to the local plan, which sought some housing - beside St Andrew's Church in Hove, as well as ugly flats at York Avenue (garish blue balconies do not disguise harsh concrete).

All of these are not so much buildings as winchings: They are simply a hoisting into place by crane of prefabricated pieces which means there is now scant point in travelling to many English towns - they all look the same.

If the strategy is to have any credence, how can its implementation be entrusted to those who allowed such grotesque schemes?

That these structures have been allowed makes everybody increasingly wary of the pleas for "brave" architecture regularly trumpeted in your columns by Chris Morley and Simon Fanshawe from the sanctuary of their 19th-Century homes.

There is, of course, good modern architecture but the council has an engrained tradition of settling for tat.

Architecture, there for all to enjoy or endure, affects the way we live.

With the growing realisation that bad building brings dead zones and an end to community, it is something on all lips.

There are only four years to the next local election, and two until the General Election. Politicians' planning decisions - good or bad - are being carefully watched, logged and discussed on the various circuits, and will be reflected at the ballot box.

-Christopher Hawtree, Hove