OPEN letter to the Development Control Committee and The Planning Department of Forest of Dean District Council.

I have been involved with the Angel Farm planning application for over a decade, during which time this long running saga has become a "thorn in the side" of all those associated with it.

Endless objections have been raised, by Coleford Town Council and residents, and despite two expensive appeal inspectors' reports this piece of land is still cause for concern.

I attended and spoke at a meeting of the planning control committee on Tuesday, March 8 when 10 conditions were to be considered for discharge.

What I witnessed that day fell short of democracy in action. indeed the proceedings were more akin to a whitewash.

I must take issue with the process of supplying the planning committee with an appraised version of the proposals by the planning officer, only minutes before the meeting. This is a biased report, which directs the committee to appreciate the conclusions and wishes of the planning authority and it is patently obvious that many committee members rely solely on this account.

In fact, the Angel Farm Action Committee became so concerned with this process that we were obliged to contact members directly with additional information in an attempt to redress the balance.

Although information and public objections are available to the planning committee on the council website, I fear very little of this information is thoroughly perused by them, and is often beyond their understanding. This became clear when the facts of this application appeared to elude many committee members, who demonstrated their lack of knowledge of the site and the proposals, by asking pointless and futile questions.

Members of the public took issue and made their voices heard. Unfortunately this resulted in the exclusion of one member of the public and a stern warning from Coun Terry Glastonbury, chairman of the Development Control Committee.

He pointed out that we were privileged to be allowed to witness these proceedings. I can assure him that listening to such inane drivel, and puerile questions, I felt far from privileged.

In fact it is concerning to find such serious planning issues in the hands of inexperienced and ill-informed committee members. who are making decisions that will change the course of our lives forever.

Secondly, the planning authority need to make improvements to their procedures and systems material and documents are often delayed from inclusion on the planning website, which we have been informed does not operate in "real time." This results in documents being withheld from public view for up to a week.

At least with the old paper files it eliminated the time difference and also avoided such errors as lost or partially scanned documents and scanning onto incorrect sites.

The AFAC did raise this issue with Peter Williams, Head of Planning, and there was a temporary improvement when information was received and posted on the same day. However, it quickly returned to its usual random performance.

This issue was last raised by myself, with Peter Williams, Head of Planning, when a drawing relating to traffic calming was omitted from the website. Due to its late inclusion I requested an extension on the time allowed for objections, which he refused as he felt "it would not require a great deal of time to look at a map."

I would agree smaller applications would not present too great a problem. However, the information for this application was substantial and required detailed consideration, and the time to determination was very short.

This was a reasonable request for an extension, but once again we experienced a reduction in standards with so curt a reply. I fear this decision had more to do with the developers' timescale issues and their haste to start on site than any planning protocols.

This haste caused further problems, when last Tuesday the district council allowed Bloor Homes to access the site prior to the discharge of the remaining planning conditions. The previous evening we had been told by the council that their entry at this time would be illegal.

The following day, Peter Williams admitted that although a crime may be committed, it was unlikely to be in the public interest to prosecute them once they had gained access to the site. On the day in question the council's enforcement officer had told Bloor Homes and their agent, Black Horse that they could not start work until all the start on site conditions had been discharged and that Bloor's claim of a verbal agreement with the planning officer for this to take place was not sufficient.

I found this news perturbing, as did other members of the public who were still in the process of writing objections on the very Conditions that had been dismissed apparently in camera. This is a very back door way of conducting planning and I had hoped for more transparency in this process.

I would add that during a three day stand off between Bloor Homes, Black Horse and residents, no one from the district council planning department made themselves available.

Bloor Homes were in such a hurry to gain access they had forgotten they needed a wildlife expert to ascertain if any nesting birds would be disturbed when they removed a hedgerow. The AFAC called the police and their wildlife protection officer was consulted before they could proceed.

This whole debacle could have been avoided if Bloor Homes had followed correct procedures. and the planning department had been honest with the people they are employed to serve.

Karen Washington

Resident of Hampshire Gardens

Coleford