Hundreds of people in the Forest of Dean have signed an open letter urging the local council to dismiss plans for a new town of 3,500 homes near the A417. The proposed development, located at Glynchbrook close to junction 2 of the M50, has sparked considerable opposition from residents who consider the site “unsustainable”.
Forest of Dean District Council recently withdrew its draft local plan on June 30 and has committed to developing a new housing strategy that will outline how to accommodate over 13,000 new homes across the district over the next two decades. However, the fate of the Glynchbrook site remains a contentious issue.
The strong objections were voiced at a packed meeting at Redmarley Village Hall on August 4, attended by Forest MP Matt Bishop. The gathering, organised by United Against Glynchbrook (UAG), took place adjacent to the proposed new town site, which is bordered by the Malvern Hills National Landscape and the historic villages of Redmarley and Lowbands.
Vicky Goodall, a 52-year-old nurse from Redmarley, emphasised the community’s call for sustainable development: “Our open letter offers the council a workable solution that delivers on the housing targets, and ensures development is sustainable.”
“I have made it clear that I do not support this large settlement … it is so important that residents take part … to ensure the local plan reflects local need,” said Matt Bishop MP in a Facebook post following the event.
Mike Holtom, a retired supply chain planning manager, highlighted that while meeting housing targets is necessary, the Glynchbrook location is not appropriate. “Glynchbrook is not the right place to build homes - everyone, including the council, has accepted that. However, we know that new homes need to be built in order to meet the district’s housing target.
“We hope the council considers our proposals - which are evidenced using the assessments of experts in their field. By expanding Lydney and Tutshill further, our reports show that both of those areas can be made even better places to live and the council will not need to build new towns.”
Vicky Goodall added: “We want new homes to be built, but they need to be built in places that deliver for people that move there. New homes need to be built near stations, schools and shops - our plan sets out how those homes can be delivered. We hope councillors engage with it.”
There is concern among United Against Glynchbrook members that the council may attempt to reintroduce the Glynchbrook proposal in its revised local plan. Phil Waring, a Lowbands resident, urged the council to seize this opportunity to reconsider housing delivery more sustainably. “Glynchbrook must be ruled out. Everyone knows it is not a viable option. I really hope Lydney and Tutshill are considered by the council - they are the options that can allow the council to meet its target in a sustainable way.”
The residents' open letter references the government’s updated National Planning Policy Framework, arguing that the Glynchbrook site fails to meet key criteria. Notably, the site would rely heavily on car travel, with the nearest town 10km away and the closest railway station 11km from the site, potentially increasing local road traffic by around 50 per cent during morning peak times.
The letter also highlights studies deeming the site “essentially unsuitable” for a new settlement and warns of risks to the historic Chartist settlement of Lowbands. Furthermore, important evaluations such as an Infrastructure Delivery Plan, viability assessment, and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment have not been completed for Glynchbrook.
Alternatively, UAG points to locations like Lydney, the district’s largest town, which could accommodate an additional 3,200 to 4,600 homes through “gentle density” and well-designed streets, utilising existing transport links, schools, and shops. An independent landscape study rated Lydney as the “most capable of accommodating growth.” Tutshill is also proposed for modest expansion of approximately 500-700 homes close to Chepstow station, along with a wider distribution of smaller sites to supply an additional 2,800 homes.
UAG has expressed willingness to cooperate constructively with the council as the new local plan is developed. The district council’s decision to withdraw the initial plan followed a public consultation that drew over 3,600 responses, many voicing concerns over housing options and site suitability.
Council leader Adrian Birch (G, Tidenham) stressed the importance of listening to residents: “Having spoken to many residents at our in-person events earlier this year, and having carefully reviewed the consultation feedback, it is clear that the options needed to meet Government housing targets could not be achieved without more work to be right for our area.”