SIR,

Further to the successful appeal by HMSG to develop gardens of bungalows adjoining the school into a car park, I would be grateful for an opportunity to express my own concerns.

After rejection by both town and county planning committees on two separate occasions, it seems beyond belief that an inspector should have the authority to overturn the collective judgment of these bodies.

Planning committees must surely comprise local people who both understand the broader issues and are committed to bring about the best possible outcomes regarding development in Monmouth.

'Garden Grabbing' for development has been and remains a major concern to many residents in the Dixton Close/ Gardens area and it is certain that the decisions of future planning committees will continue to be overturned until changes to autocratic and outdated planning procedures are made.

It also seems quite futile to expect our committee members to continue to give their time to such seemingly worthless activities as sitting on the planning committee.

In 2010 Government in Westminster introduced legislation to curb Garden Grabbing and this has virtually brought inappropriate development to an end in areas where it has been rigorously implemented; there must now be a strong case for its introduction in Wales.

Failure by the planning committee to reach a decision in time to prevent the appeal being handed to the inspector to make what I consider to have been an arbitrary decision and inconsistencies in the appeals procedure, both in my view identify serious weaknesses which should be addressed.

Ten days before the hearing, an appointment was confirmed for me to undergo surgery at Hereford County Hospital on the day and at the exact time of the appeal, thus preventing my attendance.

The planning department in Monmouth were helpful and agreed to forward my written submission to the inspector. Although told that my submission could be considered under extraordinary circumstances, it was returned by the Inspectorate almost immediately on the grounds that it was too late for consideration. In disbelief, I telephoned the writer of the letter and after some discussion it was agreed that I should return the submission with a letter again explaining the circumstances.

This I did only to have it returned a second time with a letter confirming that my two hour surgical operation arranged at short notice could not be considered an extraordinary circumstance.

I understand that had my letter been one of the many thousands lost each day in the post, this would have constituted an exceptional circumstance. Although debarred from making the submission myself, it would have been possible for me to have handed it to a person in the street, who, as my representative, could then have sought permission to hand it in and to speak on my behalf.

A last minute representative was found and although a request was made that it should be acknowledged, no confirmation was received and it therefore unclear whether it was accepted or in deed considered.

Sadly I reach the same conclusion as Phil Bly in his letter to the Beacon – this is indeed very strange democracy.

RM Peake

(Monmouth)