Sir,-In last week's paper you noted a cautious welcome for the plans on view for the Brunel site. For those of us living on St Margarets Road, parts of Kilmorey Road and Railshead Road, the caution is wholly justified.

Fifty or sixty houses will be presented with a new view. In place of trees and open sky, we will have a block of monolithic flats five stories high no more than ten feet from the street and, of course, they will be presented with a view of our sitting rooms and bedrooms.

The siting and appearance of these flats is not just a problem for those living in the immediate vicinity.

These buildings, comprising the social housing element of the development, are crammed into small corners of the site and form the view most passers-by will have of the new development.

The vista of Gordon House produced by artists and shown in your article will be available only for those who can afford £2 million pound houses.

The rest of us will have to make do with a distant view through railings from a pavement only two feet wide, because once again the developers are trying to create exclusivity by making areas inaccessible to the public, giving the impression that the world outside the gates is a dangerous place.

This, for good reason, is contrary to council policy and we should oppose it vigorously. Other parts of the development brief are in danger of being ignored in their entirety.

The open public spaces promised in the brief, with play areas for children, are almost totally absent. There is no north-south cycle route through the site and no obvious attention has been paid to principles of sustainability.

As a result the public benefit envisaged when the council permitted a change of use for the site is in danger of disappearing entirely.

I am also concerned that the nature designation of the site is to be waived. Others, living on the marina, are concerned about traffic in Railshead Road and access for emergency services.

These issues must be addressed. There is enough space on the site, as the housing density is half that suggested by the government in its guidelines for developments in London and the south east.

It would be easy to reduce the height and massing of the social housing and to provide more public space by giving these parts of the plan more space without taking more than five per cent off each of the large gardens given to the larger private houses in the development.

It seems, unfortunately, that the developer is seeking to assuage the opinion of those on one side with a pretty low-density development generating minimal traffic at the expense of others who live closer. I have already heard the view expressed that, "it could be much worse".

From our point of view, it could easily be better without causing any problems for anyone else, so I trust the council's planning officers will address these issues.

I would say from past experience that they will, but local councillors will need to do their job too.-Trevor Whittall St Margarets Road, Twickenham.

January 30, 2003 16:30