As the giant blocks near completion on the edge of Port Meadow, the persistent question has been, ‘Why did no one see the appalling impact they would have on historic views of Oxford?’

Well, we now know somebody did: somebody, actually rather important, whose opinion should be respected, listened to and above all heard.

That person is the city council’s very own heritage officer, Nick Worlledge who pulled no punches in a report that could almost have been written by the Campaign To Protect Port Meadow.

But disturbingly his report was never seen by the councillors who took the ill-fated decision to approve the university’s student accommodation development in Roger Dudman Way.

They were guided by a report that while conceding that the development would not be “entirely hidden from view from Port Meadow.” suggested that “the pre-eminent spires on the skyline from Port Meadow” would not be impacted upon.

But wait, the city council has an explanation. Mr Worrlledge was presenting his nightmare vision about an old plan. You see, the university had agreed to cut the height of the 18.36m buildings by a whopping 1.5m and what went before the west area planning committee was a totally different scheme.

Investigations by The Oxford Times, however, show this revised scheme was submitted just days before the key committee meeting.

Now while some may marvel at the efficiency of the Town Hall planners, our guess is that many more will be aghast at the rush to get the revised plan in front of councillors, all blissfully unaware of their heritage expert’s deep concerns. “What was going on?” is the persistent question now. Whatever your view of the merits of the accommodation blocks, it is now clear that the fate of the grazed meadow which, if we may borrow from Mr Worlledge’s report, — “has changed little since prehistoric times and allows for unimpeded views to the skyline of Oxford” was settled in unseemly and confusing haste, in a city that seems to consult widely on altogether less significant building proposals. Without boring readers with details of timing, it really does appear that officers managed to produce their detailed report — so very different to Mr Worrlledge’s — within hours of receiving the revised plan. It may even have been produced before the new plans were submitted. The CPRE believes that the damning heritage advice backs up the legal opinion it has received that the council may have acted unlawfully by not requesting an environmental impact assessment. Maybe, but what is clear, is that the more we learn about this planning decision, the more unsettling it becomes.