Riverside flats: The developer's view

Mr Worrall has not been entirely open about his relationship with the development of flats in River Road.

He is not a resident of Pharos Quay, or even of Littlehampton.

He owns three flats in Pharos Quay as investments which he rents out to tenants.

The purpose of his letter is to protect his own financial position.

He has told me his preferred option is to let the whole building fall into the river, which would allow his tenants an uninterrupted view.

His interests are financial, over and above any concern for the future and fabric of a town in which he is not a resident, as I am.

He states that the building I propose is "vastly higher" than existing buildings. This is not true.

It is of a similar height to Pharos Quay and many other buildings in River Road, and is lower than some other buildings in the street.

I am not paying "lip service" to the conservation area. The building has been designated of special interest by the council, and I am conserving as much of it as possible.

The conservation officer, in a meeting with the architect last year, thoroughly approved the plan and expressed his particular enthusiasm for the scheme.

The architect himself is a specialist in conserving old buildings, which is why I commissioned him.

My motive is not "pure profit". It is much more costly to preserve, than to start from an empty site.

I could also make more money by selling it on to one of the developers who have approached me to buy it.

They would not opt to conserve this final, valuable piece of Littlehampton riverside history.

I have not offered to submit alternative plans for the continued commercial use of the site.

The possibility of a factory or other commercial use, which is the current designation of the site, is not the "sabre rattling. . . threat" he accuses me of, it is a fact.

That Mr Worrall believes the building to be "ugly" is a matter of opinion.

The opinion of the Grand Designs Awards panel, that of the Royal Institute of British Architects, indeed that of the Prime Minister himself and many others, is that John Pardey Architects is an excellent firm worthy of their recognition and awards.

Mr Worrall's letter suggests he has personal knowledge of my motives and, indeed, myself.

He does not know me, and if he did he would discover that I care passionately about not only conservation, historic buildings and the built environment, but about Littlehampton and its future.

Jane Wood

Littlehampton