A long-running planning saga took yet another twist last night, after an eleventh hour intervention by the would-be developer forced another deferral.

Residents in a leafy corner of Watford have been fighting for more than five months to prevent the building of up to 45 new homes on the Rounton site, in Nascot Wood Road.

The land-owners had expected their outline planning application to be accepted at a Watford Borough Council meeting in May. Their plans, however, were scuppered when residents raised concerns about the presence of badgers and ancient woodland – both of which are protected by planning rules.

After a lengthy deferral, during which numerous conflicting expert reports were compiled, the council changed its mind and accepted that ancient woodland – dating back at least 400 years – did exist on the site.

Its development control committee, which met last night, had been expected to reject the application after three national bodies, including Natural England, ruled that ancient woodland did indeed exist on the site.

Yesterday afternoon, however, the site’s owners presented a new ecology report to the council, questioning the findings of the previous reports.

Councillors, who had been expected to reject the application, voted instead to defer it for a second time so that further investigation could take place – a decision that came as a huge disappointment to the many residents who had attended the meeting.

Councillor Andrew Mortimer, who has helped local residents campaign against the scheme, said: “My gob was suitably smacked when I heard. We got the new report at about 5pm, which was very late in the day. I’m irritated by it rather than disappointed. I am just resigned to the machinations of developers.”

The new ecology report questions not only the findings of the previous reports but the methodology behind them. The council will now have to re-examine its findings ahead of another meeting – likely to be held next month.

In a counter twist, neighbouring residents are now claiming to have discovered a badger sett in the grounds and are counter-questioning reports that claimed none existed.