16102447

A417 Village Homes Face Planning Permission Review Amid Controversy

A Gloucestershire village is at the center of a planning dispute after homes were constructed without adhering to approved permissions. Developers behind the Rock Meadow site in Redmarley are seeking retrospective approval for a pair of semi-detached homes that diverge significantly from the original plans.

In April 2022, planning permission was granted for nine homes comprising seven houses and two flats at the site. However, the developer built eight homes instead—replacing the two flats with two three-bedroom semi-detached houses and adding a single home, reducing the total number of units.

During a Forest of Dean District Council meeting on May 13, planners reviewed proposals that included a legal agreement to sell three properties at a 45 percent discount indefinitely. This is intended to secure affordable housing, a condition tied to the site’s original approval.

READ MORE: Community Unites to Save Historic Village Pub from Conversion

READ MORE: Investigations Underway After Fatal A436 Crash Claims Woman’s Life

Jeff Wheeler, chairman of Redmarley Parish Council, expressed frustration over the handling of the application. He highlighted that the parish council had no chance to comment on the recent amendments and accused planning officers of rushing the process to favor the developer. Wheeler pointed out that the site lies outside the settlement boundary and claimed permission had been secured “after threats” by the development officer.

The parish council contended that affordable housing providers previously lacked capacity to take on the one- and two-bedroom units originally required. However, new information revealed that Wydean Housing had made an offer last March, complicating the narrative. Wheeler criticized the developer’s refusal to accept this proposal, attributing it to financial motivations and labeling the situation as “his own greed.”

The parish council requested a delay until June’s meeting to consider the latest updates but was denied, fuelling concerns about due process integrity.

From the developer’s perspective, Benjamin James of BDLM Limited described their efforts to engage registered housing providers, including Two Rivers Housing and Rural Housing Association, both operating locally. Despite persistent outreach, responses were initially absent, until the council recommended Wyedean Housing Association. However, Wyedean’s offer of £305,000 was far below the site’s valuation and construction costs, which James estimated at £488,000 excluding land, making the affordable units financially untenable for the small developer.

James emphasized that, unlike large developers, BDLM Limited operates on tighter margins and relied heavily on council guidance. Eventually, the developer began site development in March 2024 under the advice that some units could be classified as discounted market dwellings, incurring smaller financial losses.

Clive Reynolds, development manager, reaffirmed that while council officers have offered guidance, the planning committee holds the final decision, countering allegations of collusion or predetermined outcomes.

Local councillors voiced divided opinions. Ward member Phil Burford called for the parish council to be given a chance to respond, stressing that the developer took a risk by deviating from approved plans. Meanwhile, councillor Clayton Williams noted local demand for affordable homes, sharing anecdotes of families eager to purchase in Redmarley.

The debate also highlighted a drainage dispute between the developer and Two Rivers Housing, possibly explaining the lack of offers from the provider. The committee ultimately voted to defer the decision for one month, allowing the parish council to submit representations on the amended application.

SUBSCRIBE FOR UPDATES


No spam. Unsubscribe any time.