As architects for the alternative West Pier proposal, my colleagues and I were interested to read "Pier plan alternative is slated" (The Argus, May 2).

John Wells-Thorpe is surprisingly misinformed. Firstly and most importantly, our proposal offers a similar net commercial area as the West Pier Trust's scheme.

The Trust and St Modwen have spent a lot of time and money on their scheme. We are disappointed this is all they could come up with on such a strategic site. It shows the same lack of ambition that has led to so many unloved buildings in Brighton and Hove.

We strongly believe a concept such as the one we have put forward could maximise the commercial potential of the site without spoiling the view or creating narrow, windswept spaces devoid of sunlight, which is the reality of the St Modwen scheme.

In a case as important as this, there are some issues which cannot be brushed aside by one narrow vision of commercial reality.

How do we know the commercial strategy being proposed by St Modwen is the only solution that will work? It just happens to be the only one on offer. Is that good enough?

What is the financial basis of the proposal? How exactly will it fund the rebuilding of the pier and maintain it in the long term?

Mr Wells-Thorpe's technical comments on our scheme are complete red herrings. Our proposal is simple, with potential for a large, flexible, lettable space for cafes, bars, casino and clubs or other uses with a year-round attraction.

It would also allow the architecture of the pier and Regency Square to take centre stage. The scheme is, after all, about the commercial development supporting the restoration, not the other way round.

-Nick Lomax, Lomax Cassidy & Edwards, part of LCE Archimed