THE Cabinet Member for an Efficient Council and Planning Policy last year, following many portfolio holder's meetings, and in good faith on the advice from officers recommended to Cabinet that Sedbury along with other sites go forward for inclusion into the draft allocations development plan document (ADPD).

This happened and the document was endorsed by full council in May 2013.

However, the officers who made the recommendations had prior knowledge that the Sedbury site had been the subject of a previous refusal,  and that on appeal, had been dismissed by the Secretary of State.

For whatever reason the officers chose not to advise the councillors of this very important material information.

The councillors on the planning committee and subsequently full council were also unaware of the previous refusal.  

The chief planning officer, in response to a question from objectors to the application, who asked: "prior to the full council meeting of May 2013, were councillors advised during any portfolio or committee meetings that the Sedbury site had previously had planning consent refused?"

The response was "Although no mention of this decision was mentioned to full council last year, as far as my colleague, who is responsible for drafting the ADPD document is aware none of the members were advised of the refusal prior to the full council meeting"

We believe that all councillors were duped when they were persuaded to endorse the draft ADPD in May 2013.

The Sedbury site was refused consent in April, and was subsequently brought back to the May meeting, the planning group manager having sought counsel's advice, reportedly believed that there was "new information" that was of "material consideration" to the application (there was none), and councillors were disturbed to discover that part of the site is owned by council, and were unwilling to accept the officer's comment 'that this doesn't matter." After a long debate, the application was refused for a second time.

Incidentally, before the meeting a copy of the counsel's advice was requested from the planning group manager, this was refused claiming legal privilege.

It will be interesting to find out how much the Forest of Dean District Council had to pay for the so called "new material". The question has been asked, we await a response!

Given that we believe all councillors were duped when persuaded to endorse the draft ADPD, now is the time for this draft ADPD to go back to full council at the earliest opportunity, and be debated at the May full council meeting on the 29th.

Common sense should prevail and the Sedbury site  should be removed from the draft ADPD. We haven't had time to check, yet, but one has to ask are there other sites which have been similarly afflicted?

– John Powell, Sedbury.