We were alarmed to hear thatthe appellant's agent has recently written to the Planning Inspectorate to reiterate his assertion that the site should be granted permission because it is included in the consultation document.

What on earth were WDC thinking of when they included Kites Nest Lane as a potential site in the consultation document? We were told by a representative of WDC that a number of potential sites were put forward by local residents but deemed to be unsuitable and did not make it onto the list. How therefore did Kites Nest Lane manage to get included? So, now we have this ridiculous latest situation on our hands.