THE planning meeting at Coleford on the April 8 was a revelation. A surprise refusal by the planning committee to consent the planning application for some 110 houses.

A lady from Sedbury gave an extremely polished presentation. She spoke for only three minutes but highlighted everything that was wrong with the site.

More importantly she pointed out the way the planning officers have suggested that the site could be included in the emerging local plan – despite all that is wrong with it.

The agent for the developers stated that mitigation regarding the fate of the resident dormice has been carried out - it hasn't.

An email from the Forest of Dean District Council's own biodiversity officer, had not been presented to the planning committee.

The reason it was not shown to the councillors was, I believe, because it contained damning information that would scupper the application.

As dormice are a European Protected Species (EPS) planning authorities are required to have evidence to support an assessment of the likely impact on EPS, prior to issuing consent.

Surveys have identified dormice including adults and juveniles using the site, with evidence that all existing hedgerows and scrub are being used by the species. The proposals will have impacts on areas of habitat, in these circumstances the planning authority must consider the three tests in Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 before determining the application.

All three derogation tests were required to be carried out, and be met by the proposal prior to planning permission being allowed.

If any of the tests cannot be met then the authority should refuse consent. The third test sets out in Regulation 53(9) deems that the development should have no detrimental effect on the favourable conservation status of an EPS. The third test has not been met.

They were only going to rip out some 184 metres of hedgerows, 167 native trees and 547 square metres of rough grassland - poor old dormice.

In addition to this, Natural England, a statutory consultee hadn't even been consulted!

Gethyn Davies Tidenham district councillor, gave a short presentation highlighting all that was wrong with the site, and proposed a motion to refuse planning consent.

This was readily seconded, however the planning department headed by Peter Williams then started to try and persuade otherwise, stating that the site was going to be included in the draft allocations development plan document (ADPD).

The committee chairman then pointed out that the ADPD had no weight at the moment and will not until sometime next year!

Another interesting point was raised – could the public come back to council if it is shown that full council was not aware of a previous refusal, when the councillors were asked to accept this site going forward?

Gethyn Davies was asked if he would be happy to withdraw his proposal. Gethyn replied he would not. Panic among the planning officers.They were asked of the risk of costs for refusal re an appeal. Peter Williams said 7.5 plus out of 10.

The vote was seven for refusal, six for the application and one abstention. Did all the councillors present at the meeting vote?

Overall, it seemed that the officers believe that councillors will vote for whatever they suggest – dream on.

– John Powell, Tutshill.