WELL, here we go again. It wasn't long ago that the planners brought the approved Sainsbury's plan in Lydney back to the table to get the approval overturned before giving approval to their new favourite, Asda.

Now they are attempting the same again in Sedbury. I was there when the Beachley Road development was refused and so was the press.

At the time it was obvious that the planners did not like the outcome but it was democratically made.

As a consequence the planners refused to issue the notification so that they could bring the application back to the committee to ensure they vote the 'right' way this time because they've found 'new reasons' why they should.

It's very kind of them to save the developers the money for an appeal.

I was honestly expecting the developers to appeal – they all do.

Never in my wildest imagination did I expect the planners to do it for them.

It should also be noted that the 'reasons' mentioned above will not be made public until seven days before the meeting.

The reasons for refusal are still valid, indeed one or two more have now been revealed. It was proven at that meeting that this site should never have been included in the draft ADPD (allocations development plan document) anyway. It is not morally or democratically right to attempt to overturn a decision in this way and makes a laughing stock of the elected committee.

This site was refused by the Secretary of State before for being outside the settlement boundary – it's still outside it.

The parish council had supplied smaller infill sites for the same number of houses which wouldn't overwhelm the area at once unlike the new town they are proposing, but these were refused by the powers that be.

So much is organised by, and I quote: "the planning policy group", an informal group which exists to advise the cabinet member Brian Robinson who is responsible for planning policy. The full title of the group is planning policy portfolio holder's support group. As it is informal only brief meeting notes are kept and these are not published.

The public really doesn't know the half of what is being agreed behind our backs and there is no way of finding out.

We pay the planning officers' salaries out of our Council Tax, not the developers.

At the public consultation for this site there was no public support.

If an area doesn't want a development on a greenfield site when alternatives are available, the planners' job should be to ensure it isn't passed – not bend over backwards to ensure it is.

With their policies it is no wonder they are worried about appeals elsewhere and are proposing this site as the sacrificial lamb.

It is not surprising to note that the next field is now up for sale at an exorbitant price – one which suggests someone has had a tip off that development there will be next.

We can only hope that the members of the planning committee throughout the Forest of Dean are wise to what is happening and will stand up to the planners' bullying threats or risk bringing the whole organisation into disrepute.

– K. Harris, Tutshill.