The present proposals try to cram far too many units into the space available.

Judging by the artist's impression of the first phase, the proposed development will constitute an incredibly ugly piece of architecture
It occurs to me that the only possible excuse for developing the seaward side would be to give the properties unparalleled views of the bay.

As the proposals stand, most of the apartments would have very limited views.

This being the case, why could this development not take place on, say, the car park opposite the Midland or old Frontierland site?

One of the most disturbing things about the current plans is the number of bedsits. And who, given the choice, would want live in a bedsit?

With regard to creating a café society with nice shops, this idea sounds wonderful but is not viable.

We have short summers and long winters in which any business on the seaward side would struggle to survive, few would battle gales and driving rain to shop there.

The most disturbing aspect, however, is the secretive and obstructive way council officers have tried to avoid public consultation on the issue.

Their idea of consultation is showing plans in an out-of-the-way venue, The Platform, which they know few people would make the effort to go to and, in any case, how many people were aware of it?

Whatever people think of Coun Archer's views she's at least made sure the full plans can be viewed in a place of greater public access.

Officers should remember we are talking about the sale of public land and, as public servants, they have a duty to ensure fair and transparent debate.

Steve Ormerod
Address supplied