As Convenor of the HOVA Group (Heritage Over Vandalism, Actually!), I am drafting a statement of objections to the proposals in the planning application for the King Alfred site in Hove.

A paramount point I shall be making is: "In regard to height, density, the bizarre crumpled design and the proclaimed riot of colour, the proposed development would be highly intrusive in the much-loved Hove seafront and alien to its series of maritime conservation areas. On a larger scale, I consider that it would even destroy the image of Hove itself."

I can understand some are impressed by Frank Gehry's futuristic scheme, particularly when they view it in isolation from its setting, as with the model in Brighton library.

However, I am convinced that if there was a referendum, the great majority would agree with the point I am making above.

A scheme of this sort needs to be located on a larger, derelict site, where it would not conflict with existing buildings and might help revive a declining town.

Gehry's oft-cited Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is built on just such a site.

It may be relevant that I have been voted into the top ten of the 125 people nominated in The Argus as having changed Sussex for the better.

I was amazed and gratified but I understand that it was because of my advocacy of conservation in the Seventies when I was director of the Greater Brighton Structure Plan and then borough planning officer of Brighton.

It is significant that two of my close collaborators were also nominated - Mike Ray, my "oppo" in Hove, and Selma Mountford, veteran secretary of the Brighton Society (a group member of HOVA).

In our endeavours, we influenced the eventual demise of the regime of demolition and high-rise redevelopment which had its heyday in the Sixties.

Now, Brighton and Hove City Council ,as planning authority, is at the threshold of a crucial decision. If it approves the King Alfred application, it could well be reverting to such a regime.

-Ken Fines, Hove