COUNCILLOR John Tanner claims that “nothing was hidden from councillors” in relation to the Port Meadow flats development (ViewPoints, April 5).

However, only access to planning files under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that the damning opinion “There is no justification for this harm,” from Oxford City Council’s head of heritage, was withheld from councillors on the planning committee that met only three weeks later. What else was hidden? 1. That the roofs of the revised scheme which “addressed the heritage officer’s concerns” were not lowered by 1.2 meters as the council stated, but only a small section of the apex was removed. 2. Council statements that tree planting would not be effective in mitigating the loss of views of the skyline. 3. That the case officer ignored the city archaeologist’s advice to consult with English Heritage. 4. The true height and mass of the development was hidden from ward councillor Susanna Pressel, fearing that she would object given her well- known concerns regarding the protection of Port Meadow’s views.

And there are other questions. What action was taken over the Environment Agency’s comment that the site was so contaminated that they would object because of the unacceptable risk to the environment, unless there was a stringent planning condition dealing with contamination?

Has Oxford University complied with the contaminated land condition?

Was a report from the council’s own Environmental Sustainability Officer – that she cannot be sure that the site is suitable for use and doesn’t pose a risk to human health or the environment – circulated to members?

This handling of this planning application is increasingly, and rightly, a huge embarrassment to Oxford City Council. We urge our elected councillors to decisive and courageous action to get all facts into the open, and urgently review the planning permission. SUSHILA DHALL (on behalf of Campaign to Protect Port Meadow from Ouxford University) PPMOU) Stable Close, Rewley Park, Oxford