OUR blood boiled when we read “Farmer’s battle to fend off ‘legalised theft’” in the Journal last week.

We have lived in Winterslow for 30 years and, although we do not overlook the field in question, we are concerned about the environment and future wellbeing of people living here.

We are members of the WOOD group (Winterslow Opposed to Overdevelopment) – formed when Mr Sheppard and Primetower developers proposed 140 houses on a green space in the centre of the village.

There was much opposition to these inappropriate plans, and we had to act to prevent this development taking place. The Winterslow Neighbourhood Plan survey highlights that residents do not want a major development in the village. Plenty of other sites have been identified to meet Winterslow’s housing needs.

WOOD, quite within its rights and within the law, applied for the field and copse to become an open space or “village green”.

The council called a public inquiry as it felt there was justification as we had 64 witness statements stating that people had used the field and copse during the past 20 years.

The well-respected and experienced inspector came to a balanced decision based on the evidence presented to him, finding that only the copse be designated an open space – only for his decision to be rubbished by members of the Southern Area Planning Committee, who were seemingly unaware of the legal definition of what they referred to as a “village green”.

Yes, a copse can be an open space where people walk, look at the flora and fauna and children build dens. Cllr Clewer took great pleasure in getting a cheap laugh out of the matter while rather missing the point. It is our opinion that apparent sympathy of the planning committee for Mr Sheppard and political pointscoring made a mockery of the democratic and public inquiry process. Let’s not forget we live in a 21st Century democracy, not a medieval fiefdom.

It was quite heartening to hear some members of the Southern Area Planning Committee say they know the land in question and did not believe it was suitable for a large-scale housing development.

It now looks like the council is being asked by the planning committee to concoct a reason to reject the inspector’s recommendations, when no such legal basis exists.

We believe it is up to the council’s legal officials to bring this planning committee back to earth and give the inspector’s recommendation the appropriate and legally-based consideration it deserves.

JOHN AND BETTY PAGE Winterslow