Gloucestershire Constabulary (GC) says its serious concerns over the massive Elms Park proposals have been "ignored" by council planners.

It does not have the money to police the new development and said developers have not been asked to contribute money towards the extra resources needed.

The constabulary is now taking legal action over how officers at Cheltenham and Tewkesbury councils have handled the situation.

Councillors from both areas are due to decide tomorrow (May 29) whether the £1billion scheme should be approved .

Officers have recommended it is given the go ahead subject to a S106 agreement being signed.

The development has been more than a decade in the making and officers from both areas have spent countless hours assessing the details and wrangling with the developers over them.

But Chris Nelson, Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Gloucestershire said there has been "no meaningful or lawful engagement" with the constabulary. It said the development would have "far reaching consequences" on policing in the area and they have not been properly addressed.

Mr Nelson has written to both councils reminding them that the law requires them to work proactively and positively with partners to ensure emergency services have enough capacity to cover new developments. 

He said: "Great weight should be attached to this requirement. This is because policing is a key component in keeping communities safe and thus is important for achieving sustainable development."

Developers Bloor Homes and Persimmon Homes want to build up to 4,115-homes on 620 acres of land near to J10 of the M5.

It would see the largest ever swathe of greenbelt in the UK transformed into a new town and encompass land in Swindon Village, Uckington and Elmstone Hardwicke. It would include a 25-acre business park, 100-200-bed hotel, a doctors surgery, sports hub, community centre and three schools.

The cross-boundary application is set to go before Tewkesbury Borough Council from 9.30am and Cheltenham Borough Council from 3pm. There have been more than 180 public comments on the application and more than 30 from consultees.

Both councils will receive the same report and details about the application and both must approve it separately for it to go ahead.

Mr Nelson's letter dated yesterday (May 27) reminded civic chiefs they had legal obligations to prevent crime and disorder.

It states: "Contrary to the officers' report, there has been no meaningful or lawful engagement with GC. This is despite numerous requests made to the officers and to the CEO of the council to engage in discussions.

"For all practical purposes, GC has been ignored."

He is "particularly concerned" that the report to councillors states there was not enough information to determine whether GC has any surplus or existing provision to police the proposed development.

Mr Nelson said this information was provided and added: "For the avoidance of any possible doubt, I can reconfirm on behalf of GC that that the situation has not changed from the consultation response. The answer is: No, GC does not have surplus provision or resources, and without the requested developer contributions it will have to divert funding from existing areas of policing; in other words, 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.

"The consequences of a failure to secure adequate funding for the necessary policing provisions are obvious."

GC has engaged a legal team including a King's Counsel to review the approach taken by council officers and a substantive letter to both councils' monitoring officers is being prepared.

He said litigation was a "last resort" and GC hoped to work with the authorities to resolve the situation.

He added: "As matters stand, members cannot lawfully grant planning permission unless they secure the inclusion of the mitigation that we requested as part of s106 undertaking."

A joint statement from Nick Bryant, Director of Growth at Tewkesbury Borough Council, and Chris Gomm, Head of Planning, at Cheltenham Borough Council:

"We have consulted in a sensitive and timely way with all our partner agencies on this planning application, as we do with all our major projects.

"The views of the constabulary have been carefully considered by planning officers. The professional recommendation is that the request from Gloucestershire Constabulary does not meet the statutory tests needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms. This is clearly set out in the report for members of both planning committees to consider."