Sir – Your balanced piece about the Florey Building (Feature, November 4) shows while some may not like the building many others (including its users and luminaries such as Lords Foster and Rogers) definitely value it, which is why it is listed.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but fundamental architectural principles are not: quality, size, scale, appropriateness to context, response to landscape etc. are qualties every building must have — particularly amongst Oxford’s world-class architecture and landscape.

Against every measure the crude commercial development proposed for St Clements fails miserably.

On this important site, adjacent to a world renowned listed building, development must be of the highest architectural quality which properly respects its neighbours.

The six-storey buildings do exactly the opposite: they are too high, blocky without relief, devoid of interesting form, and respond to neither the river, landscape, views, adjacent houses nor to the listed Florey Building. They will be overbearing, gloomy and unpleasant to live in: many rooms face north, many overlook the car park, and narrow gaps between buildings mean lower rooms will get scant light. It will be equally unpleasant for pedestrians.

This is an example of the cheapest, “pack ’em in tight” design that sacrifices all environmental and architectural quality in order to maximise developer’s profit. Oxford’s councillors show discrimination and appreciate quality architecture when allowing building’s such as Zaha Hadid’s on Woodstock Road, interesting and experimental as was the Florey Building.

They must reject this dreadful proposal otherwise they could reasonably be considered guilty of a dereliction of duty: granting permission will ruin St Clements and suggest they had set all discrimination aside and lain supine while developers wreck the city for profit. I’m sure they are too principled to allow this to happen.

Alan Berman, Oxford