An ongoing planning wrangle has left a social housing tenant facing the prospect of legal action if he mows the grass in part of his home’s back garden.

Paul Tucker claims part of the back garden is being held hostage by the family of farmers who own the land the house was built on.

Mr Tucker’s troubles began the day before he was due to move into 10 Creek Close, Frogmore, on November 1, 2016.

He received a telephone from an apologetic Hastoe Housing representative telling him that due to a legal issue, the social housing provider couldn’t take ownership of the property from the builders and it would not be able to rent the property to him until the problems were resolved.

Hastoe explained to Mr Tucker that the main issue was that the builders had built the row of four properties along the top of Creek Close about two metres to the side of where they should have. This resulted in an encroachment into the remainder of the large field which was, both during the construction period and after work had finished, being used to grow crops.

He was told negotiations were under way between the landowner, the Perraton family of Winslade Farm in Frogmore, who had provided the land for Hastoe to build the houses on. He was advised that a revised planning application would need to be submitted to the council to take into account the ‘over-build’.

Hastoe told him that it had submitted two applications, one which covered the build as it currently was, and another which shaved off part of the back garden and drive of Paul’s property, so as to comply with where the boundary was originally agreed to be.

Should the negotiations be unsuccessful, Hastoe would simply move the fence in two metres and rebuild the wall in the drive slightly. This would result in a smaller garden and the loss of a shed in its current location but would mean that it could accept the properties and begin renting. At this stage, all five properties on the lower section of Creek Close – numbers one, three, five, seven and nine – were able to be occupied as they were built in the correct position, but the upper section – numbers four, six, eight and 10 – were empty and the tenants left waiting to move in until the revised planning application was approved by South Hams District Council.

Since the phone call came the day before Mr Tucker was set to move in he had already fully moved from his previous address in Salcombe and had put his belongings to his mother’s bungalow in Winslade Close, just around the corner.

With all of his belongings now at his mum’s, Mr Tucker was essentially homeless and divided his time between his mums, sisters, and friends houses around the South Hams. Hastoe gave him phone updates roughly once a week, but he wasn’t able to move into the property until the end of January 2017.

He was given a separate document that had a basic plan of the revised garden and drive layout and Paul’s signature on it was confirmation that he ‘accepted’ that it would be his house.

No alterations to the garden or drive had been made, but a wooden barrier had been installed that marked the portion of the drive and garden he was allowed to use.

The portion of the back garden he was entitled to is raised by design, however the steps to access it were on the side that he was forbidden to use, so although he had the right to use a section of the garden, he would be forced into committing trespass if he wanted to access it.

No efforts were made to provide him with access and the grass in the back garden was left to grow, with neither Hastoe nor the Perratons showing any interest in maintaining it.

Mr Tucker wasn’t prepared to let the grass grow into a jungle, so he regularly mowed it throughout the summer, only to have Hastoe tell him, “don’t mow the grass on the other side of the barrier”.

He even tried to point out to Hastoe that in accordance with his tenancy agreement he was supposed to keep the garden in a tidy condition but that in order to do so and to access his portion of the garden he had to cross the barrier as there is no other way to get up there with a lawn mower.

During this time, Paul was hearing numerous different things, such as Hastoe wasn’t in contact with the Perratons; negotiations were continuing, but complicated; his garden would be downsized; then he might be able to keep it after all; and that he’d even get a replacement shed and steps to access his back garden. He was given possible dates for this but there were many delays with a variety of excuses, such as, “the builders won’t work in the wet”.

Paul requested on numerous occasions to have the plans sent to him, but his requests were ignored.

Mr Tucker said of the Perratons: “They leased the portion of the field to Hastoe so the small estate of nine affordable houses could be built to meet the demand in Frogmore for local housing.”

Around the time the Hastoe properties were being built, the Perratons submitted a new planning application for 40-plus homes on the remainder of the field next to Creek Close.

The plans showed a road connecting to Mill Lane and across out onto the main road. The application was named ‘Phase 2’ and the Creek Close development was retroactively named ‘Phase 1’.

The application was refused by SHDC.

The Perratons then submitted another for the same field, this time for 28 homes, which was, yet again, refused. They then submitted another application for eight houses in the same field, which was also refused, and are currently appealing the decision over the 28 homes.

Mr Tucker said: “In addition to this being an obvious attempt to build something solely for their own profit, the reason why I am taking the Perratons’ behaviour so personally is that the plans for their proposed extension to Creek Close incorporates the section of ‘my’ garden and drive they are currently holding for ransom.

“Worse still, the land is referred to as a ‘community area’, and it will simply be an open area of grass. So they clearly have no use for it, they don’t plan on building a house on it, and it has no value to them except as a bargaining tool.

“All told, I am in exactly the same position as I was a year ago – with my farmer/property developer neighbours trying to extract money for what is essentially a thin sliver of an enormous, empty field and a distant landlord whose ‘development team’ no longer reply to my queries and in this bizarre position where I become a criminal whenever I mow my lawn.

“I don’t have much and this house is literally my dream house and I love living here, regardless of all the boundary issues. I honestly don’t plan on ever leaving. It’s definitely taken the shine off though and I’ve been put through a lot of undue stress because of it.

“I just don’t think it’s right for me, a completely innocent party who should be able to enjoy this awesome house that I’m lucky enough to be living in, to be caught in the middle of all this – where both sides suffer nothing but I continually get caught in the firing line.

“Interestingly, I’m told that the portion of my garden being held hostage was mentioned at a meeting as something that would be handed back to me should the application be granted. So it seems they’ve been holding onto it all this time just to use as leverage wherever they can.”

A Hastoe Housing representative said: “We have every sympathy with Mr Tucker and are trying our utmost to get the situation resolved as soon as possible. Due to an accidental overbuild, some of the garden which we would have like to have offered to Mr Tucker in this tenancy does not fall with Hastoe’s leased land.

“We have been in continual contact with all residents affected by these problems and have only recently stopped updating Mr Tucker with developments as he only wanted to be notified of any positive news.

“Unfortunately, the landowner is not currently responding to our attempts to find a solution to the problem. We will continue to try to engage with them to find a lasting deal that works for every party involved and for all our residents at Creek Close.”

Liz Perraton said: “The family are very aware of Mr Tucker’s problem and how frustrating it must be for him. We understand either Hastoe or their contractor erected a fence within Mr Tucker’s garden and drive to prevent him from using part of the garden and drive he was expecting.

“We are eager to get the matter sorted with the developer, Hastoe and we are trying to resolve the issue as soon as possible.”

Jennifer Jebb, a member of the Frogmore and Sherford Parish Council said: “I have been attempting to resolve this situation on behalf of our parishioner, Paul Tucker, for well over a year without success. South Hams District Council recently refused planning permission for eight houses adjacent to Creek Close in the AONB.

“The applicant has stated that, if their application was approved, the boundary would be realigned so that Mr Tucker regained his driveway and garden areas currently barricaded off. Now that the application has been refused, the parish council is attempting to gain permission from the landowner to permit Mr Tucker access to the restricted areas until this situation is finally resolved.

“Mr Tucker is a perfectly reasonable gentleman who is being used as a pawn in a situation not of his own making.”