Villager feels misled over sports field plan

Susannah Smith,cream coat on the right,with Maids Moreton residents,Moreton Road residents and members of Buckingham Rugby Club protesting about Bellway 80 homes proposals.'111027M-A208
Susannah Smith,cream coat on the right,with Maids Moreton residents,Moreton Road residents and members of Buckingham Rugby Club protesting about Bellway 80 homes proposals.'111027M-A208

A VILALGE resident afeels they have been misled over proposals for a housing development off Moreton Road.

Susannah Smith said when developers Bellway Homes gained planning permission for 200 homes they promised an adjacent field would be reserved for a public sports field with changing facilities.

But this week Bellway closed a pre-planning public consultations on plans to build a further 80 homes on the field between the houses already constructed to the west of Moreton Road and the Rugby Club.

Mrs Smith said: “There is a requirement for a play area and sports pitches, and if they had allocated an area in the southern field for the sports facilities and only built 150 houses, they could have extra house in the northern field.

“But they have built all the houses they have permission for and are not providing what the originally signed up for.”

Mrs Smith has referred back to the original 2005 Aylesbury Vale District Council planning brief for Moreton Road which said: “Land to the north of Manor Farm will be reserved as an area of formal open space and will include, full size and junior sports pitches suitable for either football or rugby, a changing pavilion and adjacent car park, a floodlit multi use games area, and a neighbourhood equipped children’s play area/s.”

The brief said any developer would expected to contribute towards the facilities and would be required to enter into a planning obligation agreement with AVDC to that effect.

Bellway’s new plans do include a sports fields to the west of the proposed housing development, but show no buildings

A spokesman for SNC said the planning permission was not dependent on sports facilities being provided in the field adjacent to the development.

He added: “The development brief identified the land as public open space, but this was not secured in the planning permission. Instead a financial contribution, in lieu of the provision of on site open space, was secured through a Section 106 agreement towards off site leisure provision.”

No one from Bellway was available to comment.