Stephen Warden (Letters, July 17) asserts: "For nearly a century the piers existed in competition with each other."

Both were in decline by the late Sixties. The Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Company, when the Noble Group acquired it in 1984, could not finance essential repair works and the West Pier closed in the mid Seventies (it could not function commercially to afford on-going repairs, long before our Pier was rejuvenated from 1984).

Given the history of the inability of the two piers to compete successfully in the same market, is it not bizarre that Brighton's successful pier should be jeopardised by state-aided competition?

It is not the "worthy folk of Brighton and Hove" who are saving "this fragment of our joyous heritage" (again, Mr Warden). It is state funding which, in turn, is dependent on commercial, long-term business.

Once public money is spent, Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Company will suffer loss of trade.

Our potential loss is, in large part, the basis on which the Lottery Fund can self-righteously claim it is getting "value for money".

Our point is if it wants to support the rebuilding of the West Pier, so be it. But it should not off-load the cost to a privately-funded, commercial competitor.

Tim Holman, on the same letters page, naively suggests the West Pier will offer "attractions considerably different from (those) currently available on the so-called Brighton Pier." Our pier attracts a broad market and has a wide range of facilities.

It is obvious the rebuilt West Pier will affect the fortunes of Brighton Pier, particularly when St Modwen's proposals are examined.

The West Pier will not be an "up-market" cultural experience. It will be a complex of bars and restaurants with some "speciality" retailing.

There is no commitment by the promoters not to install rides or fruit machines, as did the West Pier in its previous incarnation.

Mr Holman also dredges up the hoary old issue of our theatre. It was never intended the theatre should be restored - it was always to be a multi-purpose hall and, in any event, there is no obligation to rebuild it.

Anthony Scarrott's assertion (Letters, July 17) that we are trying to "stifle free trade" is even more bizarre. We have no objection to competition, provided it is on a level playing field.

-DH Biesterfield, The Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Company, Brighton Pier