Public must be assured punitive measures are being considered

However, those that have taken the trouble to read that document will know that this is a rather selective interpretation. Indeed, the fact that the University is now under way with a ‘retrospective’ Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), offered as a tactical retreat to avoid the risk of a full High Court hearing, underlines the point that one should have been carried out in the first place.

There has to now be faith that this ‘after the event’ EIA will be carried out properly. This means it must not be prejudiced by the fact that the buildings are up and occupied. In that scenario, all options, including physically reducing the height of the buildings need to be on the table.

Unfortunately, the signs are that the process is not devoid of such prejudice. The city council and the University appear to be considering a very restricted palette of remedial options that start and end with little more than paint jobs and tree planting.

For the conclusion of this sorry affair to restore public faith in the ability of the planning system to protect valued assets, the public must be assured that truly punitive measures are being given serious consideration. However, no one from the University or the city council is talking about the most obvious solution that presents itself when one takes a walk across Port Meadow and considers the dischord now dominating that cherished and famous view.

That is to reduce the height of the buildings by two or possibly three storeys. No doubt this would be financially painful for the University and possibly, by extension, the council, but it has to be one of the measures given due and proper consideration.

If that does not happen, a strong signal will be sent out to developers and councils everywhere that however much the regulations are flaunted, the ultimate sanction will never materialise.

Dominic Woodfield, Silver Road, Oxford