In reference to JM Hawkins (Letters, June 19), I would like to try and answer some of the points made. Yes, Lewes District Council (LDC) has a constitutional right to object, but it does not have a moral one, nor a mandate from its electorate because votes have been held behind closed doors. Only a portion of the development (a car park) lies within LDC boundaries, not all of it, which seems to be the suggestion.

This is inverting the mistake for which LDC vilified the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) - stating the whole development was in Brighton and Hove.

In fact, it is in both but the majority is in Brighton and Hove.

The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is taken as a given at Falmer, but plainly not at Toads Hole.

I fail to see any difference in the two locations - both have dual carriageways running alongside them, are surrounded by housing and buildings in general and have exposed soil.

But Falmer also has a railway line running right by it which makes it a much better site for the stadium.

The "offer" from the owners of the land for its "free" use involved a lot of costs outside purchase.

Transport links may be good at Toads Hole but add to them an existing railway station and Falmer is a lot better.

I just wish people who object to this development would nail their colours to the mast and actually say what they are constantly hinting at, or avoiding saying - that they are quite happy for a stadium to be built anywhere but "Not In My Back Yard".

-Rod Higgins, Hailsham