Sir – I write as an Oxford resident and Brookes alumnus who depends partly on Brookes for his livelihood. Clearly, the council’s decision on September 24 was intended to give Brookes a bloody nose — but why? Brookes is one of the city’s success stories. A major employer, placed top of the league of new universities, producing employable graduates.

Anyone who visits the Headington campus can see how badly it needs to improve. It has hardly changed since the mid-1980s and must now be holding back academic progress.

Several councillors present on September 24 (not the full council by any means) seemed to have little grasp of the planning issues and were easily swayed by a vocal minority of residents with axes to grind. Remember, until the Lib Dems intervened, both this application and overall masterplan had received approval.

In clutching at straws to find reasons to dissent, some councillors made disparaging remarks about the architecture (by a RIBA award-winning practice) and others slurred the character and behaviour of students — which would somehow be made worse if the application was approved.

The real reason for the “no” vote of course was a crowd-pleasing response to the well-co-ordinated campaign by local residents’ associations against the alleged “studentification” of Headington and East Oxford.

No doubt this is a real concern, but it was not the issue under consideration.

This application was not about expansion or increasing student numbers, but replacing tired facilities at the Headington campus.

Studentification is a wider debate requiring real vision and political groundwork to reconcile the varying demands of these communities.

It’s not a valid reason to reject a single planning application.

The muddled, fuzzy, partial thinking I witnessed amongst the opposing councillors on the 24th should worry any Oxford council taxpayer under the illusion that the council strives to maintain the city’s vibrancy, variety and economic prosperity.

Andy Bramwell Summertown