Sir – As I was the object of criticism in three letters last week, I would like to claim the right of reply.

Much of the tirade against me concerned my choice of modern buildings which I commended as respecting their situations.

I agree that both Minster Court in the City and the Judge School in Cambridge have been the object of some hysterical criticism but that is because they rejected the current accepted architectural norm that buildings must dominate their surroundings rather than respecting them.

The criticism also emanated from the architectural profession itself and I learned through a professional life (as a planner) that the views expressed by them are often best taken with a pinch of salt.

As the architectural critic Wright said: “What is wrong with these people? Minister Court gives respect to older buildings in this tight City quarter.”

I would maintain that the majority of people, as judged by the recent public meeting, would reject the Blavatnik building as objectionable and would rather see it constructed elsewhere, for example, at the science park. The Jericho Community Association, which could claim to be the democratic voice of local people, has objected to the building in forthright terms, including the removal of hundreds of bodies from the burial site which has hardly been mentioned. Mr Brimson asks where Jericho Watch was when the Jericho Health Centre was built.

Jericho Watch objected to the building as it had grave reservations about the building. These reservations were proved to be justified when the building was constructed.

It is a valid observation that the illustrations provided by the architects looked nothing like the finished structure. This is a common tactic to divert objections and the illustrations of the Blavatnik building underestimate the oppressive impact the building will have on Walton Street.

Paul Hornby, Jericho Watch