PLANS for up to 110 homes at Sedbury have again been refused despite warnings that the decision could put other areas at risk.

Forest Council officials took the unusual step of putting the application back in front of the authority's planning committee warning that the loss of the development could make it more difficult to defend appeals against refusal of other schemes across the district.

Objector John Powell, who addressed the planning committee meeting, said he was "like a dog with two tails" after the decision.

Planning officers said the reasons for refusing would not be defensible at appeal and could lead to the award of "substantial" costs.

The grounds for refusal included extra traffic on local roads and the A48 and concerns about adding to the well-documented air pollution problems caused by slow-moving traffic on the A48 through Chepstow.

Gloucestershire County Council's highways department has said it could not defend the refusal on traffic grounds and the Forest Council's environmental health service.

Refusal of the scheme would have an impact on the five-year supply of land for development that the council has to have.

A report to the planning committee states: "Where a council cannot substantiate a five-year land supply...the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) requires its policies in terms of the supply of housing to be considered out of date.

"This essentially means that development boundaries will have no effect...the NPPF requires planning permission to be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole. This is a high threshold to surmount."

The committee was told officers had to reconsider a current appeal at Staunton (Coleford) in light of the possible refusal of the Sedbury development.

"In light of the impact of the Sedbury resolution it is considered a credible argument on five-year land supply could be made.

"Accordingly one of the grounds of opposition has been taken away."

Councillors on the planning committee were unhappy that they had not previously been made aware that the land has six owners and voted nine to five to let the refusal stand.

Cllr Gabriella Kirkpatrick (Ind All, Tidenham) said it was the last green field between Sedbury and Tutshill and would be "significant visual intrusion".

A request had been made by Monmouthshire County Council for a financial contribution from the developers to compensate for increased levels of air pollution on Hardwick Hill, Chepstow.

The planning committee was told the request had no proper justification, analysis or evidence and so could not be secured through a legal agreement.

A spokesman for Monmouthshire Council said: "Ultimately it's for Gloucestershire County Council and Forest of Dean Council as the highways and planning authorities to seek a financial contribution towards transport improvements resulting from a housing development such as this. 

"If the site was in Monmouthshire we would be seeking a section 106 contribution in recognition of the traffic generated by the site."