Ian Compton’s well researched piece (Council put cart before horse on cultural quarter proposals, Gazette, March 19) just scratches the surface of some of the undercurrents to the rejection of the plans for the Alumno student development in St Botolph’s, Colchester.

Why are we still harping on about this when it has been rejected? Because its not done and dusted; the land is still at risk.

The developer may appeal and win, or he might simply put in a near-identical plan with the concerns about access and consultation addressed, or a different developer altogether might put in an equally insensitive plan.

When Alumno first approached the borough council, it should have politely turned it away, pointing out its idea for student accommodation within our ancient walls was against the legally-binding Local Plan, and draw its attention to the existence of the covenant that specifically prohibits such things.

Instead, it welcomed Alumno with open arms, immediately changed the rules, attempted to buy its way out of the covenant and in meeting after meeting fell over backwards to help it design a monstrosity.

And if that wasn’t enough, it then proceeded blithely to ignore the problems as they mounted up, problems relating to disability access, parking, traffic in Queen Street, public transport, destruction of underground heritage, diminishing the Roman wall, its sheer massing, overlooking of school playing fields and the hiding up of our £35 million art gallery, environment, sustainability and (to the people of Colchester at least) total loss of the land for ten generations and complete lack of meaningful financial benefit.

Fortunately the planning committee were not fooled and threw it out unanimously.

The planners have now issued its official rejection notice. Interestingly, it contains many additional good planning reasons why the development was right to be turned down.

These were largely based on the fact the objection did not comply with the council’s own plans and policies.

That is, to say the least of it, curious because throughout the entire process, we made these very points over and over again and our evidence, data, case studies and objections were not addressed, in fact completely ignored.

No one knows why they didn’t spot these inconsistencies themselves.

Were the planning officers perhaps overworked, as they like all the rest of the civil service are cut to the bone?

Or was it because their senior officers and a succession of portfolio holders instructed them to push this through?

Or was it because the lure of money was enough to allow it to ignore the covenant on the land which forbade this kind of development, and ignore a wide variety of transparency rules, the clearly stated wish of a record number of objectors, the proper technical evidence submitted by skilled and professional commenters and simply push ahead and recommend acceptance regardless, to the point of forgetting they are supposed to be disinterested judges of a third party plan by passionately advocating for it at the planning meeting?

In the the light of the clearly expressed instructions from the planning committee, and indeed from a record number of the people who are pleased to live here, we are now requesting a line in the sand be drawn.

The Local Plan should be amended to preclude anything like this again, the developers told a further application on this scale would not be accepted and an enquiry instituted to ensure that codes of planning probity are never breached again in the interests of an unsustainable commercial development.

And maybe some people might care to consider their positions.