IF you had to pick the very worst place in the Forest to site a major development, where would you choose? 

Well, anywhere within the public forest estate would be a good start; if only because that would contravene guidance issued by the Independent Panel on Forestry.

What about a quiet and tranquil lakeside setting, destroying it for future generations?

And, while we're at it, let's choose an area considered to be one of the most significant for wildlife in all of Gloucestershire.

So far so good – just one last thing, why don't we build it over 150 uncapped mine shafts and two unlicensed rubbish tips? 

Despite receiving just three letters in favour, more than 350 objections, and 6,000 signatures calling for a public enquiry, our local planning authority granted planning permission for exactly this – the Cinderford Northern Quarter project.

The council may now have the planning permission it has so relentlessly sought but it is, without doubt, the objectors who retain the moral high ground.

Letters from the Coal Authority and Severn Trent published on the council's own website, openly criticise it for the shoddy approach that was adopted.

The land to be used is largely public land which, according to one councillor (who actually supports the project), was obtained via a process of 'smoke and mirrors'.

Its use contradicts a public access agreement signed by the council in 1992 and now, it seems, the site was only chosen in the first place because the council misunderstood the rules regarding coalfields money and mistakenly thought it could only be spent at the actual pithead sites.  In short, the whole Northern Quarter project has been one long sorry story of appalling mismanagement and lack of foresight resulting in our council having to spend almost £20 million just to get the land in a state where building can now begin.

It's an obscene amount of money, spent against the backdrop of unprecedented cutbacks in local expenditure and public services.

Cinderford's Christmas lights, for example, have become a national joke because the council couldn't find just £2,000 needed for health and safety checks.  And what of the future? There seems little doubt that this project will now go ahead but in what form and at what cost no one really knows.

It's an open-ended story that looks set to run for many years to come and, quite possibly, won't be fully completed until after many of those councillors responsible for this mess have retired.

The housing element of the plan is  already in trouble due to the excessive costs of building on such an unsuitable site.

The road, too, is expected to take at least ten years to complete due to complications in mitigating the damage caused to wildlife.

The college will probably be built fairly quickly as the council has already done a deal with the Homes and Communities Agency to take on the former site at Five Acres.

Staff there will lose their jobs or relocate, and the theatre and pool will be lost forever but let's not forget that this is a 'regeneration initiative'.

So after all this, will Cinderford be finally 'regenerated'? Who are we kidding?

– Shauna Gwynne, Whitecroft.