Sir – Last week’s front page story and editorial were a fascinating read — Oxford City Council and Oxford University confronting the fact of Cambridge leaving them behind.
It has been clear for a while that the two key ingredients cited for Cambridge’s success are missing in Oxford — any sort of joint strategy between them for growth in the city, and any concern for improving the quality of life and environment for residents.
The University is concerned for its own growth and status, but couldn’t give two hoots for the city’s residents, as their ruin of Port Meadow and failure to engage the community too visibly demonstrates.
For its part, the city council’s claim to be guardian of the city’s environment and heritage is laughable.
They have not implemented an Oxford Heritage Strategy which was required by the Core Strategy planning inspector in 2010, and this glaring omission was again highlighted in the Vincent Goodstadt planning review last year, itself forced on the council by the Save Port Meadow Campaign in the wake of the Castle Mill blocks fiasco.
How tragic that our city is in the hands of tin-eared “philistines”, as the then Planning Minister Nick Boles called the council and university in January this year, after seeing what they had done to Port Meadow.
Even then, he compared their failure to the shining example of Cambridge. He called the buildings a disgrace and called on them to apologise, which of course they haven’t had the humility to do.
Let’s hope actions speak louder than the lack of words. It shouldn’t be difficult.
Matthew Sherrington, Save Port Meadow Campaign
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here