YET again the district council is to be the subject of a judicial review in respect of another supermarket in Cinderford (Court backs Co-op again, May 30).

It is easy to blame the Co-op but they are simply using a process open to anyone with deep enough pockets to challenge bad decision-making by a council. The following comments are from the published results of previous judicial reviews, the full text can be found at http://www.bailli.org">www.bailli.org:

In 2007, Mr. Justice Collins (in respect of the Tesco application) was critical of the council for failing to comply with planning law (Article 22, Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order).

In 2013, Mr. Justice Stewart (in respect of the Asda application) said: "I therefore find that the overall effect of the officers' report significantly misled the committee about material matters which were uncorrected before the relevant decision was taken. Now Mrs. Justice Lang is sufficiently concerned that the council has yet again failed to apply law and policy.

One failure might be explicable as an isolated mistake, perhaps resolved by  disciplinary action  but three suggests questionable competence and no desire to improve.

It also begs the question: how many more defective planning permissions are being granted and going unchallenged because the cost of a judicial review is prohibitive?

There are suggestions in the letters page that council officers have withheld information from councillors in respect of the Sedbury development.

Councillor Molyneux suggests that the Co-op is putting public funds at risk but the reality appears to be that failings by the council are the real source of risk.

The unnamed Councillor who is looking for buffoons to hold accountable may do well to look to Coleford rather than the judiciary, although I understand that these days elected councillors are not encouraged to question the competence of officers, so the situation looks set to continue.

– Resident, Cinderford.