A COUPLE who have invested thousands of pounds in building their dream home in Cam are being banned from speaking out against a potential housing estate because of a gagging order imposed by the developers.

Tony Cargill and his wife Teresea bought the derelict Tilsdown House and barns two years ago from Robert Hitchins Limited. Since then the couple have spent thousands returning Tilsdown House, a Grade II listed building, to its former glory and creating a modern family home next door by converting the old barns.

The pair has also spent money creating a new access from Tilsdown and landscaping. However, developers Robert Hitchins Limited have submitted a planning application for 12 three and four bedroom homes on a strip of land next to the Cargill’s new home.

The application has been made after leaders at Stroud District Council agreed to transfer a small plot of land in Springfield to the developer to provide access for the new housing estate in return for a payment of potentially up to £150,000.

Unfortunately for the Cargill’s because of a clause inserted in their contract with Robert Hitchins Limited when they bought Tilsdown House, they are unable to object to the planning application.

Concerns have already been raised by local councillors and other residents about the loss of privacy on surrounding homes if the development gets planning consent, the suitability of Springfield as an access road and its proximity to Tilsdown House. Mr Cargill said: "This development was our dream. We have received comments from people who are concerned about the proximity of the new estate and the listed building."

Cllr Dennis Andrewartha, district councillor for Cam West, said he was looking into the situation. He said: "I have sympathy with Mr Cargill. I have spoken with Stroud officers to ask about the gagging order facing the couple."

Philip Skill, head of planning at Stroud District Council, said a clause in a private contract was not usually a material consideration in a planning application. He said: "It is also the case that the neighbour’s amenities are a material consideration, whether they make an objection or not. It must be remembered that whilst a current owner may not object to an application, for various reasons, the council must consider the effects on future owners."

Despite numerous attempts by the Gazette to contact Robert Hitchins Limited, the company has not responded.