Sir – The suggestion that the Save Port Meadow Campaign opposes any building on the Castle Mill site is false (Letters, December 4). It never has. It has opposed the insensitive design and inappropriate scale of the development.

It is simply wrong about there being no damage to Port Meadow. The protection of heritage landscapes extends beyond the footprint of the meadow, and the damage has been documented in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It is no longer subjective opinion, but fact.

It is this campaign that has brought that to light, forcing this EIA by going to the High Court, as it forced the city council to carry out its planning review that concluded that public consultation had been ‘inadequate’ and below the standards expected.

Given the experience of the University and council failing to consult properly, yes, the campaign has spent a few hundred pounds on leaflets, delivered by volunteers, to make sure people were aware and had information. No apologies there. Thousands of people have expressed support for the campaign, from its earliest petition to making donations.

Also, it is not a CPRE campaign, nor funded by CPRE. This is a community campaign, with supporters across Oxford and beyond, and it is the donations of those supporters that have paid for leaflets, as well as advice from lawyers and professional planners. It is a fraction of the money available to and spent by the University, I might add, if you went to the University’s exhibition put on by a Bath-based PR firm.

It is satisfying to be described as professional. As a campaign of committed volunteers we’ve got to this point, an EIA proving the damage was done just as local people have long said, by being organised.

And always credible, which sadly can’t be said of the University and city council over the last two years.

Matthew Sherrington, For the Save Port Meadow Campaign, Oxford