‘Bad’ plans to legalise homes which were built without proper planning permission in a Gloucestershire village and change some from social housing to discounted market properties have been given the go-ahead.

Housing developer BDLM Limited has been granted retrospective permission for a pair of semi-detached homes on a plot in Redmarley.

The site in Rock Meadow was granted planning permission in April 2022 for the construction of nine homes to be built on the site.

However, the approved scheme was made up of seven houses and two flats. One on the ground floor and another first floor.

The homes were not all built according to the approved plan and instead developers went ahead and built a pair of three-bed semi-detached houses in the place of the two approved flats along with a single home leading to a total of eight homes instead of nine on the site.

Forest of Dean District Council planners first considered the proposals at their meeting in May which included a legal agreement for three properties to be sold at a 45 per cent discount in perpetuity for subsequent sales.

But Jeff Wheeler, chairman of Redmarley Parish Council, said at the time they had not had an opportunity to comment on the latest plans.

He also raised concerns there was a “real hurry by the officer to push this through on behalf of the developer and this is not following the correct due process.”

Benjamin James, one of the directors of BDLM Limited, told the meeting in May is is a small company which was established in 2019.

He said they immediately sought out registered housing providers but after persisting in contacting Two Rivers Housing and English Rural Housing Association they received no response.

After which in July 2023, they told the council’s strategic housing officer that they were struggling to obtain a provider and sought advice.

Mr James said he reached out to the council’s housing officer for advice and they suggested they could convert to an alternative affordable dwelling type.

He said the discounted market dwellings would only mean a loss of £35,000 per home as opposed to over £100,000 per property.

Mr James said they began to develop the site in March 2024 after advice they could relinquish the three units as affordable market dwellings within their control.

Councillors voted to defer their decision and it was brought back to the development management committee on June 10.

Parish council chairman Jeff Wheeler spoke again at the latest meeting and said when the plans were originally approved there were more than 2,000 households seeking affordable housing in the district.

Some 36 of those preferring Redmarley and 66 per cent of them require one or two beds.

“The housing officer therefore recommended that two one bed two person dwellings and one two bed four person house best help[ed address the housing need,” he said.

“That is the only reason planning permission was given.”

He told the meeting he checked with the chief executive of Wydean Housing who confirmed they made an offer to the developer for the two one bed flats and the one two bed semi but he has never received any response back to that offer.

“That is until two weeks ago when a new enquiry was made as to whether the offer was still valid. In response to that, the answer was yes, the offer was still valid.

“So an offer still stands that the developer does not believe is viable.”

He said the parish council has requested a viability assessment which has been disputed by several reasons which “simply don’t stand up”.

He told the meeting the parish council also approached English Rural Housing Association who own a site nearby and confirmed “no approach has ever been made by the developer to them”.

“They are as stunned as the parish council that no approach has been made because they would naturally be the ones that would be interested in taking these over,” he said.

Councillor Philip Burford (Independent, Hartpury and Redmarley), who represents the area at the district council, said it is a complicated site.

He told the meeting there is a need for social rented homes in the village.

“We were told last month the developer said his build costs for these three units was £488,000 and he wanted to put £50,000 in for the land,” he said.

“Both figures seem high to me. Wyedean, we are told, were offering £305,000 for those three units, which means that the net cost to provide those would be £233,000 to the developer.

“If we look at the proposal before us now, with a sale at 45 per cent discount, we are told the sale price for those units would be £210,000 each.

“Therefore the developer is offering £172,000 discount per unit – and there are three of them.

“So his total cost in the current offer is £516,000 or thereabouts - some £283,000 more cost to the developer than doing what he had permission for in the first place.

“One has to wonder why when the developer is telling us he has financial woes.”

Development manager Clive Reynolds asked the chairman Dave Wheeler (G, Newland and Sling) if the housing officer would like to clarify who was contacted “because the parish council has made allegations”.

Keith Chaplin, housing strategy and enabling officer for the council, said they contacted Wyedean, English Rural Housing Association and Gloucester City Homes.

“The response, as it was mentioned, regarding English Rural was ‘thanks for the offer but for a number of reasons it wouldn’t be suitable for us as it is too far away from existing stock to be able to manage efficiently for a small scale scheme of any economies of scale’.

“In regards to Wyedean, their offer came almost nine months later…They would still be interested in principle. They would have to reappraise the scheme.”

He said they have not confirmed the offer would be the same. During the debate the chairman said it was a “bad application”.

Cllr Wheeler said: “I don’t like it. However, as the vice chair says, I can find no reason to vote against it.

“But I do not like it, I do not want it. I want the rented accommodation which I’m quite certain is what Redmarly needs and wants.”

Councillor Beth Llewelyn (G, Bream) said they couldn’t turn back the clock and she could not see any planning reasons to vote against it.

“All we can do is learn from what happened before,” she said.

The committee voted to approve the plans by four votes in favour, two abstentions and two against.

A subsequent vote was taken to change the legal agreement for the affordable housing on the site from three affordable rented units to three discount market sale homes.

The chairman said he did not think the council should be varying the legal agreement. However, the changes were approved with four votes in favour, three against and two abstentions.

CLARIFICATION

A printing error in the May 28 edition of the Forester erroneously linked a report of a retrospective planning application by BDLM for a number of homes at Redmarley with a report of a Health and Safety infringement by an different and completely unconnected firm - Property Partners Services - at a development in Bridstow.

We are happy to clarify that these are two entirely separate stories and should not have been linked and apologise for any embarrassment caused to BDLM, Mr Benjamin James and other directors.