A SENIOR New Forest councillor has spoken of her relief after being cleared of attempting to influence the outcome of a planning application.

Maureen Holding, a member of the district council's ruling Cabinet, said she had been through "six months of hell" following a complaint lodged by planning consultant Alan Girling.

The allegations against Cllr Holding, who is also a member of the planning committee, were thrown out at a meeting of the standards panel.

In a statement the three-man panel said there had been "no clear breach" of the council's code of conduct.

However, the statement added that Cllr Holding should exercise great care when dealing with planning matters to avoid any suspicion of bias or favouritism. It also recommended more training for members.

Cllr Holding welcomed the verdict, saying she had been totally exonerated, but took exception to some of the remarks made by the panel.

She said: "I never show bias or favouritism - and I have probably had more training than almost any other member of the planning committee."

The panel heard that the row related to a plot of land behind Rosetta Cottage in Wide Lane Close, Brockenhurst.

A proposal to build two houses on the site was approved by the district council on condition that the scheme included a pedestrian access.

Mr Girling, representing Heathgate Land and Property, later applied for the condition to be lifted.

Council officers originally recommended the planning committee to approve the application. However, the scheme was deferred until March this year, when members were advised to reject the proposal.

Mr Girling alleged that Cllr Holding had intervened in the planning process and breached the code of conduct.

He also criticised Chris Elliott, head of the council's development control unit, and claimed his decision to change the recommendation to the committee had been "manifestly unprofessional".

l The application at the centre of the row was approved by the government's planning inspectorate after Mr Girling lodged an appeal on the grounds of non-determination.

Costs were awarded against the council, which is facing a bill of at least £25,000.