IN response to Jill McFarland's letter about the woodland on the Listers site (Gazette, February 18), she may be interested to know that a question mark appears to hang over the legality of the planning approval for the present contract on the Littlecombe site.

The footpath CDU77/CCA 114 runs through the site and, according to a Government Circular the County, along with the owner, committed a criminal offence when they obstructed the only legal right of way by demolishing the footbridge before a diversion or extinguishment had come into effect. They tried to divert the path but their Order was rejected at a Public Inquiry in August last year. That left the definitive footpath as the only legal path, but the owner and County had pre-empted the DoE Inspector's decision by demolishing the bridge in July 2002 thereby committing the offence.

I've written to the Chief Executive of the County, but have yet to receive a satisfactory reply, quoting the relevant DoE Circular 2/93 Public Rights of Way Annex D, which states:

"It is a criminal offence to disturb or obstruct a public right of way. The grant of planning permission does not entitle developers to obstruct a public right of way. Development, in so far as it affects a right of way, should not be started, and the right of way should be kept open for public use, until the necessary order under section 247 or 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for the diversion or extinguishment of the right of way, has come into effect. Nor should it be assumed that because planning permission has been granted an order will invariably be made or confirmed."

Jack Redfern Five Acres Dursley.