Sir – In response to various letters and the ongoing debate concerning the Radcliffe Observatory site, it would be nice to have some idea of the process of how these big developments go through the wringer and get decided upon.

What exactly was the brief given by the University to the architects, and has sufficient consideration been given to what the citizens of Oxford might want?

In an ideal world we would want to gain a nice place to be, a visually stimulating area to walk through, built to a scale that is appropriate and fits in with surrounding buildings, one that uses materials that compliment, repeat and enhance what’s left of the Old Radcliffe Infirmary, and a scheme that honours the jewel of the site: the Royal Observatory. This is an opportunity to create not just build.

On an individual basis, Oxford colleges have frequently achieved clever and well-appointed new buildings within a tight and traditional brief. Oxford’s main attraction is this extraordinary wealth and advantage of both modern and historical backdrop.

The Radcliffe Obsevatory Quarter is an enormous chunk of land right in the middle of Oxford’s historic centre. My fear is that a development made up of five-storey office block style behemoths (albeit University departments) will quickly become a security conscious University ghetto — an exclusive no-go area, especially out of hours, rather than a public asset.

Let us hope that the University does at least acknowledge the Town and consult the Oxford Preservation Trust, whose work in the Castle area has improved Oxford beyond imagining. In the interests of Oxford as a whole, it is most important to get this site right.

Nicola Mallows, Stanton St John