Having just returned from another visit to Brighton and Hove, I would like to comment on recent speculation about the future of the West Pier.

I mourn the loss of several unique tourist attractions in my home town and I fully understand the sentiments expressed in your readers' letters.

However, there seems to be little justification in spending what seems likely to be an astronomical amount to restore the pier to its former glory and any half-measure such as a promenade deck would be even more wasteful.

I'm sure that a majority of the younger generation will think that whatever funds are available for restoration could be put to better use.

The success of the wonderful Palace Pier makes one wonder whether another pier is really necessary.

As I gazed across the scene of devastation, thinking about the consequence of a final thumbs-down to restoration, I conjured up an image of the skeletal structure of the far pavilion standing in splendid isolation, having been tidied up and decoratively illuminated, serving better as a monument and a tourism attraction, all other traces of the pier having been removed. But this is just a fantasy.

Incidentally, it may interest your readers to learn that Scarborough's only claim to a pier (apart from our harbour walls that we refer to as piers) lasted only a few years as it was destroyed in a storm in 1905 and, to the younger generations, any account or pictures of its existence is regarded as a slice of ancient history.

However, in a similar vein to Adam Trimingham's tribute to Brighton in concluding his article which compared your city with Edinburgh, York and Hull (The Argus, April 1), Scarborough has a few things which I am sure are the envy of other resorts.

-Charles Braithwaite, Scarborough