Not previously being informed about the case for a new college building I did not feel able to comment before.

But now that I have read the letter dated September 16 (on the Forest of Dean planning website) from Graham Ripley, Chair of the board of governors of Gloucestershire College, I can see that there is no case at all.

The letter from Graham Ripley states that a new college is essential to ensure the continuance of further education in the Forest of Dean, but does not actually say in what way it is essential.

The letter also states that it was the view of 'all parties' (of the merger between Gloucestershire College and the Royal Forest of Dean College) that a sustainable college could not be achieved in the Forest of Dean without the design of a new campus but it does not explain why this should be the case.

The letter says that a 2011 survey identified essential repair works to the existing college building at a minimum cost of £200,000.

Is Mr Ripley stating that a new college will be built for less than this sum, therefore saving money?

Mr Ripley also states that poor insulation results in high running costs of the existing building. Why is the existing insulation not therefore improved to reduce running costs? There is a vast array of insulation products to suit all types of building so I'm sure a technical solution to improving the insulation is available.

Mr Ripley cites Disability Discrimination Act 'concerns' – have solutions to these concerns been conscientiously sought or is this just a convenient reason to give for the 'need' for a new building?

Mr Ripley states that a 15 per cent increase in enrolments can be expected by providing a new building. How has this been substantiated?

A comparison between Gloucester and Cinderford is not appropriate because they are very different places with very different transport provisions and catchment areas.

Mr Ripley says that a college on the Northern Quarter is "essential to provide first class facilities for learners, employers and the community in the Forest." He does not support this by stating what it is about this particular site that makes it the only possible site to provide these facilities.

When he says the new build will:

•provide an opportunity for students to study within their local area. I would say that it might be more convenient than Coleford for some prospective students but will be less convenient for others.

As Cinderford is closer to Gloucester than Coleford it generally overlaps Gloucester in catchment more than Coleford does, in my view.

•provide 'purpose built' etc – a new college anywhere would do this or indeed substantial improvement to the existing college might achieve this at a much lower cost.

•reduce travel time for staff and students – do all the staff and students live in Cinderford? He does not include any data supporting this claim.

•encourage increased enrolments. He cites Glou­cester Campus again, whereas I cannot see this is necessarily relevant and am surprised at the lack of any feasibility studies to establish this important aspect of the proposed new college.

•contribute to the growth of the economy in Cinderford and the Forest of Dean – he does not explain why a new college has to be in the Cinderford Northern Quarter site to achieve this.

Mr Ripley is presumably claiming that the existing Coleford college is not 'fit for purpose'.

Has a feasibility study been done to see whether it could be substantially improved?

Mr Ripley does not tell us of any such attempt to evaluate the potential for improvement of the existing college or the existing site.

•Mr Ripley does not give us any clue as to how the new-build will 'serve as a catalyst for wider regeneration in the Forest' or what form this might possibly take or why the new college has to be on this site to achieve this.

•Mr Ripley tells us that the new-build is expected to lead to savings of £200,000 per year.

This does not take into account the capital cost of a completely new building on a brownfield site with substantial (and at present uncosted) engineering input required.

Although capital and running costs may be accounted for differently, commonsense suggests that they both still have to be paid for.

Mr Ripley's closing paragraph is typically emotional but lacking any substantive support for his case.

While he says "Glou­cestershire College has done everything possible to deliver the new campus at the Northern Quarter Cinderford", he does not actually tell us about anything they have done to 'deliver' it except the neglect of maintenance and improvement of the existing college buildings.

According to the Homes and Communities Agen­cy, the money allocated under the National Coalfields Programme was an 'in principle' allocation, subject to confirmation of budget availability within the HCA's programmes. The National Coalfields Programme ceased to operate in 2010 and investment for the Cinderford Northern Quarter was channelled through the HCA's other mainstream investment programmes. Mr Ripley has not told us about how the new college is being financed – is the entire cost being paid for by the HCA?

I have absolutely no experience in the funding of college buildings and I think it is absolutely essential that the funding proposal is made public before the planning application for a road specifically to serve the new college is considered. Am I the only person in the Forest of Dean who is confused about the actual funding?

I am told that the Cinderford Northern Quarter site is the only possible location because of the 'coal money' but it seems to me that the actual funding has no connection to this grant.

In Mr Ripley's final sentence he says that it will be terrible loss to learners and employers in the Forest if the new-build is not achieved but he has not given us one actual reason why it should be in the Northern Quarter development rather than anywhere else, or indeed why the existing site could not be substantially upgraded at a lesser cost.

– Nicky Packer, Cinderford