Sir – The objections to the University accommodation block close to Port Meadow voiced in recent letters and your editorial of January 31 are surely overdone.

This building is not alongside the main stretch of the meadow, as implied, but angled away from the south-east corner — in the direction of central Oxford, in which an urban prospect is to be expected.

Its design is at least presentable, with a series of split-gable fronts which avoid the lumpish horizontality of many large blocks.

And it does less to detract from the rural appearance of the meadow, I suggest, than the suburban fringe of Wolvercote, at the more sensitive northern end, which indeed could do with screening by a belt of trees.

As for the complaint of undue height (so often levelled against developments in Oxford), it flies in the face of what should be obvious: that we must build more densely if we are not to eat up the countryside — and that means higher.

The demand for the removal of one or more storeys from this building is, I believe, misplaced as well as unrealistic.

The clamour in this case is symptomatic of a resistance to any change to the face of Oxford so often displayed in letters in your columns. Should not some of the energy expended in these negative causes rather be directed towards improvements?

Just two relevant in the present context would be more tree-planting to screen off housing or roads from Oxford’s other green spaces and, for Port Meadow itself, more pedestrians entry points from different parts of North Oxford (and better sign-posting).

Edmund Gray, Former Inspector of Historic Buildings, Iffley