David Biesterfield's tortuous attempt (Letters, August 2) to defend the Noble Organisation's campaign against our proposals to restore the West Pier ("vexatious" was the term used in the House of Lords debate in March) omits key elements.

Firstly, all experts predict the restoration of the West Pier will benefit the Palace Pier and other seafront traders. The Noble Organisation is alone in thinking otherwise.

Secondly, everyone knows the West Pier needs and justifies a subsidy to achieve its restoration.

Thirdly, the trust and St Modwen will ensure that the usage is heritage and "up market". St Modwen will be bound to that objective by the leases from the trust and the council.

Indeed, both the trust and St Modwen have sought for years unavailingly to discuss non-competitive agreements with the owners of the Palace Pier.

Those factors are well known to Mr Biesterfield. It is difficult to believe the Noble Organisation's opposition to our proposals is as stated in his letter.

The Palace Pier is not fighting for its commercial life and is not threatened by the heritage attraction of a restored West Pier.

What is the real motivation which is driving an organisation to frustrate the outcomes of democratic decision making, take the British Government to the High Court, take the European Commission to the European Court and spend six figure sums in the process?

Incidentally, the owners of the Palace Pier were the first company approached by the trust to be its private sector partner.

If the West Pier is to be restored by public subsidy and then run much like the Palace Pier, why did they turn down such a good deal?

-Dr Geoff Lockwood, chief executive West Pier Trust