REVAMPED plans to build seven homes near Cinderford have been rejected.

Developers wanted permission from the Forest Council to build a new estate on land off Buckshaft Road in Ruspidge near Cinderford.

The plan was a revision of a similar scheme which had previously been refused permission by the council

Officers had recommended that the proposals for the plot of land next to Forest Lodge, which included homes, parking, landscaping and other works including the construction of two new access points, should get the go-ahead.

Cllr Bernie O’Neill (Progressive Independents, Ruspidge) spoke against the scheme at the development management committee on behalf of objectors.

He said the plans had been in the pipeline for two years which had been a stressful time for nearby residents.

Cllr O’Neill told the committee:“It would result in an oppressive environment, visually unacceptable, overbearing and obtrusive,” he said. 

“The proposal for seven dwellings with parking spaces on this site is excessive.”

He also raised concerns about access from Buckshaft Road which he said had seen an increase in traffic in recent years.

Cllr Clayton WIlliams (Con, Hartpury and Redmarley), who proposed granting permission for the scheme, said all concerns had been addressed.

He added: “At the end of the day we do need houses,” he said.

His proposal, seconded by Cllr Gill Moseley (LibDem, Newent and Taynton) was rejected by six votes to four with two abstentions.

Cllr Dave Tradgett (Green, Longhope and Huntley) proposed rejecting the scheme which was carried by eight votes to three.

He raised concerns over the density of homes proposed for the site and its overbearing nature of the homes.

Cllr John Francis (Ind, Longhope and Huntley) said there were concerns over the density of homes and the gradients on the site.

“It’s not an easy one for the planning committee to balance,” he said. 

“I don’t think I’m going to support it.”

Committee chairman Cllr Dave Wheeler (Green, Newland and Sling) the high number conditions recommended might indicate it was not an acceptable scheme

“It may be that the application isn’t acceptable – 25 is a lot of conditions.”