By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
A Cheltenham man who was “alarmed” to find his family home was included in plans to build a 4,115 new garden town was “astounded” to be blocked from expressing his concerns at his local council meeting.
Kevin Pascoe, 65, has consistently rejected approaches from developers to include his Uckington home in the huge Elms Park development near junction 10 of the M5 which was approved by planners in Cheltenham and Tewkesbury last week.
However, Mr Pascoe said he was alerted by a neighbour that the proposals, which were put before the two planning committees on May 29, included his property.
He told the Cheltenham Borough Council meeting that he and his wife are the owners of Fairfield.
And he said their property had been included in the Elms Park planning application without their consent.
Mr Pascoe also told the afternoon meeting at the Municipal Offices that he was astounded to be blocked from expressing his concerns to councillors at Tewkesbury Borough Council’s planning committee earlier that same day.
“It has been our family home for more than 30 years,” he said.
“The submission before you identifies it directly and also under the label third party land.
“Given its inclusion in the documents before you, we would have reasonably expected that whoever put the document together would have talked to us about it first.
“They have not spoken to us at all prior to its submission. We believe we are being misrepresented and take strong exception to it.
“Our property has been included without our consent. We require it to be removed, including under the label ‘third party land’.
“I must say I’m very uncomfortable having to be here today. I feel that I am compelled to do it because of what is happening.”
He told the meeting Bloor and Persimmon contacted them in 2009 and invited them to enter an option agreement with them as well as an agreement under which they would promote their property. He said they declined both proposals.
“We advised that while we had no issue with our property being developed at some future time, we have no interest in participating in such development ourselves,” Mr Pascoe continued.
He said their position was and remains to sell the property at a time that suits them and relocate.
“We are not property developers and we do not want to participate in any development activity,” he said.
“They told us they would draft heads of terms to reflect that and get back to us. They subsequently decided against doing this.”
He told the meeting they were approached again by Bloor Homes in 2015 and they told them their position had not changed.
Mr Pascoe said, between the two visits from the developers, he had been invited to the Tewkesbury Borough Council offices to discuss development interest.
“I confirmed at the meeting that while my wife and I would cooperate with preparation of development plans in general, we would not support any request for development approval that included our property while we owned it,” he said.
“I have confirmed no change to our position upon email request on a number of occasions since.”
Mr Pascoe said they have been approached by several land agents over the years and responded in the same way.
He said the request for approval had alarmed him.
And explained that they found out about the plans going to committee a week before when a neighbour contacted them.
“I obtained a copy and read through it with increasing alarm,” he said.
Mr Pascoe relayed his concerns to the planning case officer Paul Instone after some time trying to find a way to contact him.
“I eventually managed to do so. We spoke on the telephone on Tuesday this week (May 27). I read this transcript to him to make him aware of our concerns.
“He said he was anyway producing an update to his document and would attempt to address our concerns in it. We’ve not seen an update.
“We realise our property is small and may be considered insignificant. The words of Bloor and Persimmon, I should say.
“But if the generators of the document before you had wanted to include it in their submission they really should have talked to us about it first.
“It is our family home and we most certainly do not consent to its inclusion. We require all references to it removed including from the label third party land.”
Mr Pascoe also told the meeting in Cheltenham that he applied to speak at the planning committee in Tewkesbury but was blocked.
“My request was denied,” he said. “I am astounded”.
During the debate Councillor Simon Wheeler (LD, Hesters Way) asked officers to explain why Mr Pascoe’s land was shown as part of a planning application. “Am I not right that anybody, my next door neighbour, could put in a planning application for my back garden?
“That is perfectly OK in law, however, he can’t build it if I don’t either sell it or allow him to do so.
“Mr Pascoe could live the rest of his life there, he could sell the land on, he could do whatever he wished.
“But the application could not be built out unless he was to sell it to a developer who wanted to fulfill the developers wishes.”
Mr Instone confirmed that was “a correct summary of the position”.
Councillor Barbara Clark (LD, All Saints) said she felt bad for Mr Pascoe and asked council chiefs to consider changing the rules to allow more than one objector to speak against major developments.
“We are democratically elected to represent people and Mr Pascoe really ought to have had a chance to speak in front of his own councillors,” she said.
Cheryl Lester, chief planning lawyer, said her comment had been noted. “It’s a point of view for the constitutions of both councils, isn’t it?”
Earlier in the meeting, she explained that there was only one speaking slot per objector and supporter.
“Somebody had already registered in the slot at Tewkesbury to object and obviously that was the slot that was taken,” she said. “Unfortunately that is the situation Mr Pascoe was faced with.”
Gloucester News Centre – http://gloucesternewscentre.co.uk
Original post on the Gloucestershire News Centre website
Gloucestershire News Centre