Mike Hymas' letter (AJ 19.2.04) states that a new pier to replace the now destroyed West Pier in Brighton 'misses the point.
Brighton does not need another pier and on its own it is unlikely that it would attract investment.'
How then, as he argues, will a restored West Pier, with its ballroom and tea-drinking, financially justify these restoration costs?
It would also be interesting to define Mr Hymas' term 'restored'. Although many of the original fixtures and fittings have been saved, the pier would essentially be new-build, albeit in a replica style, which questions the validity of it as 'a very historic project of international significance', and more of a thinly veiled case of resurrecting a missed scheme.
It is interesting that they have not championed the cause of restoring the Chain Pier, destroyed so many years ago.
Would it not be more appropriate for the interior fittings and fixtures to be reassembled within the existing Brighton Museum, or a new-build extension to replicate the original interior of the pier?
Messrs Lomax Cassidy & Edwards could perhaps get the chance to finally provide their 'scheme backed by a very competent local team, and the local community'.
Corin Morton, London