I APPRECIATE Ray Wilcockson's views in his reply to my comments on his original letter (The Midland's not rank, September 30).

Admirably, Mr Wilcockson has no problem with someone expressing a view contrary to his own, but I still feel he has misunderstood my letter.

My comments regarding the Midland were not a reference to its present state but a comment on the sheer ugliness of this 1930's Art Deco architectural monstrosity.

I fail to see how this building can be Grade Two* reserved and in the top six per cent of those listed, indicating its outstanding importance to our architectural heritage'.

Why is it so outstanding? And why is it of such importance to our heritage? I'd really like to know.

During the course of my employment (a fire-fighter stationed at Morecambe in the early 90s) I was inside the building on numerous occasions. I have never been even remotely impressed by any architectural merit the Midland is said to possess. Indeed, I have been extremely underwhelmed by its supposed attributes.

It is brick built, concrete clad, featureless and hideously ugly. You could coat it in gold leaf and it would still be brick built, concrete clad, featureless and hideously ugly.

I suspect that the eyesore that is the Midland, and its continued prominent position on the seafront, is more down to nostalgia than anything else.

After the Blobbygate' scandal this council doesn't have the guts or the inclination to deal with the Midland or any of the other problems in Morecambe. It's easier to ignore it. And why shouldn't they?

Lancaster's the flagship and it's booming. How convenient that Urban Splash is around to take the blame for this inertia.

S.Hyde, Morecambe.