I WRITE in response to questions about the press release issued by the Dinedor Hill Action Association, concerning its legal challenge mounted to invalidate the permission for land to be allocated for housing at Bullinghope, and consequently prevent the developer contributing funds to the building of the Rotherwas Relief Road.

There appear to be two issues. The first is whether the High Court action is meritorious and well considered, and the second, whether the newly elected councillor for the Hollington ward has a mandate to stop both the Bullinghope housing and the Rotherwas Relief Road.

The new Hollington councillor was elected with less than 27% of the poll. This means that over 73%, of those who voted, were opposed to the cause espoused by the new councillor. Even more significant is the fact that less than one eighth of the Hollington electorate actively supported his viewpoints. Moreover, compared to the 2003 election results, 36 fewer people have voted for him and for his policies on this occasion. Hardly a mandate in anybody's terms.

Compare these figures with ARE's mandate. We represent the views of 125 Rotherwas businesses, employing nearly 3,000 people, who signed a petition in just over a week last July. In total 126 businesses were contacted during that short period and only one declined to sign the petition - a success rate of over 99%. A very clear majority of those asked to sign the petition.

The words of that petition to councillors are very apt today. It reminded them that the Secretary of State, in advising the council that the government would not be funding the Rotherwas Relief Road, suggested it should seek alternative sources of funding. Our petition urged the council to use private sector funding to part fund the road. It recommended the Bulling-hope housing proposal be reinstated.

Clearly, the electorate throughout the county have considered the roads and house-building policies of one of the parties were right, because that party was elected this month to run Herefordshire Council with an overall majority.

On the matter of the legal challenge, I have to ask whether this action is out of time'. Why was it not commenced after the council's scrutiny committee met last October or when the full council met in November? Six months have elapsed since then and the building of the road is now in full swing.

I must also ask why the people behind this challenge have sought a protective cost order which, if successful, would limit to £10,000 their liability to pay the legal costs of other parties to this action, should their challenge fail? To seek such protection raises the questions of how confident they are of success or, indeed, whether the challenge is but a nuisance action?

If they have found some legal vehicle or loophole to delay the project, this could cause Herefordshire Council taxpayers dearly, with the possibility of having to raise additional millions of pounds to meet the costs incurred by that delay.

In the event that the legal challenge succeeds to some degree, I predict those supporting it will face a very irate Herefordshire public.

Brian Tannatt Nash, Chair of the Association of Rotherwas Enterprises.