THE appeal against the refusal of planning permission for up to 200 homes on the outskirts of Lydney – described as a 'localism housing proposal' – will be decided in Whitehall.

Following a request from Forest MP Mark Harper, Secretary of State for Communities Eric Pickles said he would make the final decision on the proposed development at Allaston.

Mr Pickles will receive a recommendation from planning inspector Neil Pope who heard evidence at an inquiry held at the Forest of Dean District Council offices in Coleford.

Mr Pope said: "The main issue is whether, in the absence of a five-year land supply, any adverse impact of the development having particular regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area and traffic including any undue reliance on travel by car and highway safety would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme."

Christopher Young, the barrister for Allaston Developments, said the new estate would provide a local solution to housing need in Lydney.

He said: "It is no usual planning application. It is a localism housing proposal."

Miss Alison Ogley, for campaign group, SAD (Stop Allaston Development), said evidence from its experts would cover planning policy, including sustainability, the impact on the landscape, delivery, impact on highways and accessibility.

The inquiry was told Gloucestershire County Council had agreed the development is sustainably located, the existing highway infrastruture could accommodate the development and that local roads operate.

The county council also agreed that the extra cars from the site would not have a material impact on local roads.

Miss Ogley said there was "no real dispute" that the proposal does not comply with the Forest's overall development plan because most of the site is not currently allocated for building and is in the 'open countryside'.

Mr Young said SAD had "paid little regard" to the policy objective to significantly boost the supply of housing.

The inquiry was told there was a restriction that the eventual builder must be Forest-based and that it would be homes for local people.

Some 20 per cent will be self-build which is "generating interest, especially among some younger people" and 40 per cent would be affordable homes, although 15 planned for older people would be provided elsewhere in Lydney with Allaston Developments making a financial contribution.

Some of the 40 or so people present laughed when Mr Young said the gradient of local footpaths (which include the steep Primrose Hill into the town centre) were "not a significant deterrent."

--------

'Why we pulled out' – council

THE appeal was unusual in that the Forest Council did not defend its decision to refuse permission for the proposed development at Allaston.

Key to the decision to pull out was the defeat suffered by the council just a few months ago over an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for 110 homes at Sedbury.

The inspector at that appeal decided the council could not show there was a five-year supply of land for development in the Forest – and that undermined its case at Allaston.

The council's principal planning officer, Martin Hillier, told the appeal: "Sedbury was the first case in which the council's five-year land supply was subjected to intense scrutiny.

"This decision was taken by the council's solicitor in accordance with the council's constitution and officers' scheme of delegation having first consulted senior planning officers, the chairman of the planning committee and the relevant Cabinet member.

"It was not a decision that was taken lightly and it was acknowledged that there was significant local opposition to the scheme but it was considered on the balance of probabilities the significant financial risk could not be justified."

Mr Hillier said the council also strongly rejected a claim by a Forest resident that it had acted improperly in making the decision.

Mr Timbrell, of Drybrook, told the appeal the council's Cabinet acted outside its powers by making the decision and that it should have been referred to the full council.

He called for the appeal to be abandoned.

Mr Hillier responded: "The decision not to defend a planning application does not constitute a planning appeal nor does it stand in place of the original decision of refusal.

"The council has in no way acted illegally in determining its position and strongly opposes the application for adjournment."