The planning inspectorate's decision to uphold the appeal by Rail Property Ltd against Brighton and Hove Council to obtain residential planning permission for the allotment land above the railway in Highcroft Villas does not take the stability of the chalk cliffs on which the land is situated into account.

Following a significant rockfall in 1987 and after consultation with residents and the council, British Rail commissioned its own geological survey of the cliffs from Howard Place to Highcroft Villas. As a result, BR took expensive steps to make the cliffs safe, with the exception of the section beneath Highcroft Villas, which supports the allotment site.

This land, according to the report at that time, provided a sufficient margin of safety against cliff erosion for the highway and the houses on the opposite side of Highcroft Villas. Now the intention is to build within that safety margin - and above one of the busiest railway lines in the world.

Why was the planning inspector who presided at the inquiry not made aware of this survey and its findings by the British Railways Board or, indeed, by the council? Were they simply unaware of it? Surely no residential development can be allowed on this land without first securing the cliff? This would, of course, entail enormous expenditure for any developer foolish enough to take the land on and would inevitably render it unprofitable.

For the sake of safety, shouldn't the council appeal against the precipitous decision of the planning inspectorate before the land passes into private hands and the cliffs come tumbling down?

Stephen Plaice

-Stanford Road, Brighton