Opponents to a resurrected ambitious bid for housing from a "no-win, no fee" service on 14 acres of green fields near Dursley have slammed the move as a "fishing trip" to head off protests against the potential project.

Bristol-based Grass Roots Planning Ltd is currently running a consultation (until January 12) for Clifton Homes Ltd, which describes itself as a "no-win, no-fee planning permission service" which now hopes to build up to 73 homes on land off the B4066 Taits Hill Road, between Cam and Stinchcombe.

If backed, the scheme would feature 54 houses, 16 apartments and three bungalows across the site, with proivision for 22 affordable homes in the mix.

Against the changing political landscape signalled by Westminster's intention to free up planning bids, any eventual approval would represent a coup: amid an initial screening bid in 2021 made for the location to develop 61 homes, the proposal was roundly rejected by the local parish council as "speculative and unplanned development". Backed by overwhelming support, Stinchcombe Parish Council immediately formed the Taits Hill Action Group to stand against the move.

In an approach to residents, the developers have indicated that they plan to submit a planning application after the consultation ends next week, with early details in the document revealing an area of open space, a community orchard, a play zone and cycle and bin storage facilities. Each home would also come with an EV charger as standard.

Further measures would see better pedestrian access to the proposed site and new measures to tackle the high speeds by drivers on the adjacent B4066. In 2022, the busy road, which links Dursley and Cam to the A38, saw a serious collision in which two young men died, a coroner's report subsequently noting that speed played a crucial role in the accident.

The consultation says: "We want to create somewhere that existing and future residents can enjoy for years to come... The application is seeking outline planning permission, meaning that specific details of the proposal can change once a detailed planning application is submitted."

It adds, however, that outline planning permission would determine the maximum amount of development and "set a series of parameters, which will guide detailed proposals that will show the exact appearance of dwellings in due course".

It concludes: "We would like to welcome your comments on the emerging site layout, and other elements of the proposal, as well as what you would like to see incorporated in the detailed design in due course."

But the resurrection of a planning bid on the land looks set to be strongly opposed by local residents and parish councillors.

One resident rebuffed the approach and said the move by Clifton Homes "an ad hoc survey, not a true consultation", while another speculated that the informal move was merely a "fishing trip" to determine the nature and extent of objections.

They added: "This proposal is outside of the current local plan and was dismissed from within the proposed plan currently being examined. The website you go to to answer their questions is disingenuous at best, trying to look as if this is agreed and just now getting into a bit of detail about for eg whether an orchard should be included. They are trying to confuse people."

Cam Community Action Group has also thrown its weight behind opposing the scheme, warning that the original bid, in 2021, went against both the National Planning Policy Framework and Stroud District Council's Local Plan, the original ruling citing principle landscape sensitivity and the impact on the AONB, while adding that any impact on higheways safety had been unresolved.

The campaign group also points to a 2019 Strategic Assessment of Land Availability (SALA) report which identified the site as CAM028 (Land east of Tait's Hill Road) and was rejected for housing due to the high impact on landscape.

The SALA report said: "The site is not suitable for development because of the likely high landscape impact; housing development would significantly extend the main settlement westwards, but would feel divorced from it due to the steep valley slopes, and would be further detrimental to the function of the area as a green/wildlife corridor."

Employment development would, the report also added, "appear incongruous and prominent and would be isolated from the main commercial areas. There are therefore potential impacts preventing sustainable development in this location."