I WRITE regarding your piece relating to the proposed land exchange and development of the Cinderford Northern Quarter (CNQ) site.

The Forest of Dean District Council criticises objections to the land swap and the CNQ development, notably those from the members and associates of Dean Natural Alliance not because they are "ill founded" but because they do not align with the views of the Forest of Dean District Council and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA).

Dean Natural Alliance is not a single body it is what it says it is - an alliance of groups and like-minded individuals.

But that fact does not reduce its credibility, reduce the value of the knowledge and expertise of the members or preclude either DNA or the individuals/ groups within the alliance from objecting.

It could equally be said that the partners in favour of the development – the Forest of Dean District Council, Cinderford Town Council and the HCA are an alliance – they though do not choose to call themselves that.

For the record, four of those who wrote in support of the proposed land exchange are councillors, there is one block vote of support from Cinderford Town Council and one individual from Gloucestershire County Council.

I note that the Forest of Dean District Council does not suggest these six supporters should be discounted because of their alignment.

The consultation exercise is a democratic process, it should be entered into with an open mind, with due respect for the constituents and consultees and proper consideration should be given to the responses resulting from it.

Without that respect and consideration it is an invalid, useless process and an affront to democracy, especially so when elected representatives dismiss objections out of hand.

The lack of supporters prepared to commit in writing does nothing to confirm the level of support for the land exchange or development alleged by councillors.

The bio-diversity strategy and the mitigation measures proposed for the CNQ development have attracted reservations and objections from wildlife organisations and others.

Some of the mitigation measures have been specifically criticised, other measures designed for one group of species will have a directly negative effect on other species.

Overall, the strategy and measures offer the minimum necessary to allow for the development while utterly failing to appreciate and account for the eco-system as a whole within which each and every species depends upon or supports the others and the habitats in which they exist.

The value of the CNQ site as a wildlife reservoir is a direct result of the matrix of habitats and species, a complex entity that has evolved over a considerable time and that cannot be re-created by the means and within the timescales proposed for the development. The objectors are neither Luddites nor saboteurs.

Of those that I know and have spoken to, to a man, they believe in and support investment and regeneration in Cinderford and the wider Forest but do not support it being in the CNQ location which is so remote from the existing infrastructure, facilities and population and has at best a questionable level of geological support.

They sincerely believe that they are objecting for good reasons, they were not forced to do so and the fact that some of them have used a DNA devised pro-forma is irrelevant.

– Andrew Bluett, Born Forest­er, temporarily Gloucester.