THERE have been suggestions that those who express views against Doric’s plans are wrong in the head, or have nothing else to fill their time. I don’t think I fit either description.

I am not against improvement. The office blocks look derelict and an eyesore – they dominate Elms Parade and I’d gladly see them demolished – what planning considerations allowed them to be built in the first place?

I’d welcome a refurbished shopping precinct as portrayed by the architects’ impression, in place of the run-down one behind Elms Parade.

The Co-op is sufficient to supplement my online shopping, but I’d use a larger supermarket if it were here. I’d use a cinema here too, rather than travel to Oxford or Witney.

I wonder who the 525 students are that we are being asked to welcome into our community – I perhaps wouldn’t object if I felt there were a pressing need to house them here. A hotel wouldn’t change my life either way.

However, these facilities are not additional to those currently offered – they are instead of long-standing, independent shops and other traders. They are instead of the age-restricted accommodation in Field House. They are instead of the architecturally interesting and loved Elms Parade.

Doric’s proposals replace a friendly centre of the community (which in no way needs ‘regeneration’), with a shopping centre like any other, and making people homeless to achieve it ! Our community will be destroyed and replaced with a building site.

Suburban shopping areas thrive where they have an appropriately-sized supermarket alongside independent shops and cafés. Are we wrong to want to keep and improve what we have?

Is it unreasonable to ask whether the price the people of Botley are being asked to pay for improvement is just too high?

MARY GILL
Eynsham Road
Botley