Controversial plans to legalise homes constructed without proper planning permission in the Gloucestershire village of Redmarley have been approved by the Forest of Dean District Council. Developers BDLM Limited received retrospective permission for two semi-detached homes on a site at Rock Meadow, despite significant objections and procedural concerns.
Originally, planning permission granted in April 2022 authorised nine homes on the site — seven houses and two flats. However, the developer built eight homes instead: a pair of three-bedroom semi-detached houses replaced the two approved flats, along with an additional single home. This deviation from the approved scheme prompted controversy.
In May, the council’s planning committee initially deferred the decision amid worries raised by local parish council chairman Jeff Wheeler. He criticised the speed at which the council was pushing the application forward and highlighted a lack of opportunity for local consultation. The homes were intended primarily as affordable rented housing, matching district needs where over 2,000 households seek affordable accommodation, including many prioritising one- or two-bedroom units.
READ MORE: King Charles Reveals His Playful Side with Mo Farah ‘Mobot’ Gesture
READ MORE: Royal Family’s Trooping the Colour move signals a “significant” moment for Harry and Meghan
BDLM director Benjamin James explained the developer’s struggles in securing registered housing providers to manage the properties, citing lack of response from Two Rivers Housing and English Rural Housing Association. Following advice from the council’s housing officer, the developers proposed converting three of the units into discounted market homes, offering a 45% discount on sale prices in perpetuity. James stated this change reduced their losses per unit from over £100,000 to approximately £35,000.
Despite ongoing concerns, councillors returned to the plans at the June 10 meeting. Parish council representatives restated that affordable rented homes were an urgent local need and disputed the developer’s claims of financial hardship. Contact with Wyedean Housing confirmed they had made an offer for the original affordable housing units, yet the developer had not accepted it. The parish council also contested the viability assessment submitted by the developer, deeming it inaccurate.
Councillor Philip Burford described the financial details as baffling. He noted the high build and land costs claimed by the developer contrasted sharply with offers from housing associations, raising questions over the developer’s justification to shift from social rented housing to discounted sales. Burford emphasized the local demand for social housing and hinted there were valid grounds to refuse the application.
Housing strategy officer Keith Chaplin confirmed the council’s attempts to engage housing associations: Wyedean expressed renewed interest pending a fresh scheme appraisal, while English Rural Housing Association declined due to logistical challenges managing a small, isolated development.
Throughout deliberations, councillors expressed clear dissatisfaction with the application, with chairman Dave Wheeler calling it a “bad application” while acknowledging few grounds existed to reject it outright under planning law. He voiced strong personal preference for retaining affordable rented housing, reflecting community needs.
Despite reservations, the planning committee voted 4-2 in favour of approving BDLM’s retrospective application, with two abstentions. A further vote approved altering the original legal agreement, replacing affordable rented homes with three discounted market sale units — a move opposed by the chairman but carried by a 4-3 vote.
This decision highlights ongoing tensions between development ambitions, local housing needs, and regulatory processes in rural communities, with Redmarley’s case underscoring the challenges of balancing affordable housing delivery with developer viability and planning compliance.