Sir – Peter Howell, most valiant defender and protector of Oxford’s buildings, is right (Letters, December 10) that Rick Mather’s revised Keble Acland designs will incorporate “Only the taller part containing the entrance” of Sir Thomas Jackson’s 1897 grade II listed building and argues that “the wing running west from this” should also be retained.

This raises the vexed question of whether everything designed by Jackson merits protection and preservation, which in this case is doubtful; and this must invoke necessary discussion on what does and does not merit listed status.

Mr Howell has recently raised concerns about Wolfson College’s plans for “a drastic alteration” (quoted in the Oxford Mail, December 9) to the college’s entrance area, which the college hopes to replace “with a new lodge, academic offices and seminar rooms, with a reception cafeteria and exibition area on the ground floor”, to which Mr Howell countered “What we do not understand is why Wolfson has not been listed yet” (ibid).

In his capacity as secretary of the Victorian Group of the Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society, Peter Howell has also objected to Zaha Hadid’s plans for an extension to the Middle East Centre at St Antony’s College which, in a revised form, were granted planning permission in September 2008.

We must be very grateful to Mr Howell for his scholarly interventions, perhaps in the spirit of my late cousin-by-marriage, Tom Greeves (1917-1997), an artist and architect, who was a prime mover in saving Bedford Park from the hammer and was a great admirer of Victorian North Oxford; yet, as recent letters to The Oxford Times have demonstrated, there is an appetite for the new in Oxford, just as there is in London.

Getting the balance right between preservation and innovation is a mighty challenge and one not to be fudged on either side of the argument.

Bruce Ross-Smith, Headington