The Parish Poll will be held in Christopher Rawlins School between 4.00 pm and 9.00 pm. You have to attend the polling station in person and can only vote within these hours.

Parish Council Land – Milton Road – A number of years ago, the original owners wished to donate some land in the village to improve the sport facilities that the village has. As residents may be aware, the current provision which is located at the Lucy Plackett Playing Field frequently floods and is unusable on a number of occasions during the year.

The process for transferring the land is controlled under the Local Planning Authority and when it was given to the Parish Council, it had a restrictive covenant that it could only be used for ‘sports pitches and a community facility’.

There have been other suggested uses for the land and although they are all valid submissions, the Parish Council has to work within the remit of the restrictive covenant.

The Parish Council appreciates that not everyone will be in agreement with the development of the land. However this is an opportunity which may never arise again for the village and a village such as Adderbury, with a population of over 3000, deserves good sports facilities and a decent sized Hall which everyone can be proud of.

The Parish Council has now sought advice from Cherwell District Council and it has been confirmed that the Section 106 agreement and the Land Transfer document are different agreements.  It was also confirmed that the Land Transfer document is in full compliance with the Section 106 agreement.  It is the Land Transfer document which the Parish Council is bound by and as the transferee, the Parish Council has to comply with it and the restrictive covenant.  The full written advice will follow in due course.

Parish Poll
A Parish Poll has been called by some residents, for Thursday 11 May 2017.  The question asks ‘do you support the plans for football pitches and a clubhouse on the land north of Milton Road?’

This suggests that the Parish Council intends for this to be exclusively for football, which is not true.   The Parish Council has agreed to set-up a Working Group to investigate how the land could be used, under the legal restrictive covenant, not just for football, but other sports too.  There are other groups in the village who have already indicated that they would potentially use the Hall for their meetings and other indoor sports/fitness sessions.  There would also be provision of car parking on the site.

It is also envisaged that part of the remit of the Working Group would be to look at the Lucy Plackett Playing Field and improvements which could be made on that site.   However, this would be as well as, not instead of, developing the Milton Road land.

Once the Working Group has met and has some ideas in place, there will be a full and transparent consultation process with the village, on how the project moves forward.

Whatever the outcome of the Parish Poll, the Parish Council believes that football should be part of this site, although not exclusively and it hopes that residents will support the inclusion of football, as well as other sporting activities on the site.

Comments (21)

  • Peter Burrows

    Please define frequently.

    • Peter Burrows

      Further to my query regarding the definition of ‘frequently’ in respect of the
      flooding of the Lucy Placket field, I hear that the Football Association has
      grants available to assist with flooding problems on pitches.

      Has this avenue ever been explored by APFC?

  • Stephen M Betts

    I attended the monthly Parish Council meeting in Adderbury on Tuesday 25th April. During the ‘Open Forum’ when parishioners can raise any issues that concern them (in a three minute time allowance) one villager stood up to complain about the forthcoming Parish Poll scheduled for May 11th.
    The villager, who I am told, was Mrs Val Scarf, made certain claims which were inaccurate and though I tried to correct these after she had spoken, I am concerned that other village residents may be misled, hence the reason for this letter.
    The first claim was that “The majority (of the villagers) have said that this is what they want” (a sports field and community centre on the land north of Milton Road). This claim was backed up by referring to the ‘Contact Poll’ which took place last autumn.
    This, as I have outlined before, was an online poll advertised in The Contact magazine in which only one vote per household was allowed. As I have explained many times, in The Banbury Guardian,, Adderbury News and Save Adderbury, this poll was completely undemocratic and what’s more, the poor turnout highlights the lack of awareness for this online poll.
    Even so, the 2016 online poll, carried out by the team behind the Adderbury Neighbourhood Plan, ON BEHALF OF Adderbury Parish Council, had the following results:
    62% supported using the Milton Rd site for NON football purposes
    60% did NOT support a large community centre at the Milton Rd site
    I pointed out that the two previous surveys, carried out in 2006 and 2013, which had a much higher turnout, also came out against the development, with the one in 2013 recording that 85% voted for NOT building a new community facility at Milton Rd with 45% preferring to develop the existing Lucy Plackett site at the centre of the village.
    When I stated this at the meeting the reply was “That’s history”. Well it may be, but such a large vote in 2013 cannot be ignored by anyone who supports the democratic principle.
    Mrs Scarf also said that “She would have to go to this ridiculous poll”. Mrs Scarf is a previous chair of Adderbury Parish Council and, in view of that, I am surprised to hear that comment from her. Seeking the true wishes of the villagers in a full and proper survey is never ‘ridiculous’.
    Once again I will state, as I did at the meeting, I am a firm believer in democracy and that, if APC had carried out a proper survey last year then I would never have called for a Parish Poll. In addition much was said at the meeting about the trouble that this was causing in the village. I asked APC to reconsider the so called survey when I attended the meeting in February and again in March but they took no action. Small wonder that residents are angry about this when they are represented by a council which appears to take no note of their wishes. In 2006, in 2013 and even in 2016.
    If the village votes for football pitches on May 11th then that is fine. If they vote against, that is equally fine. It is the village’s wishes as a whole that should count, which is why we are having this Parish Poll in the first place.

  • Stephen M Betts

    I was recently approached by Mr Andy Green to answer some questions on the forthcoming Parish Poll for the Adderbury News.
    With Mr Green’s agreement I am posting the questions and answers on here for the benefit of any interested parties:

    A Green (AG)
    I believe you have done this because you feel the Neighbourhood Plan Team’s survey failed to attract enough response and contained a summarised response from the each house, rather than each individual.

    I am advised by Cherwell that the Poll you have requested will be advertised on village notice boards and the Parish Council’s website. I believe the Parish Council will also advertise the Poll in Contact and on the other village websites ( and

    I am writing an item on the Poll and have a couple of questions which I hope you will answer for the article.

    1. Given the advertising for your Poll will be almost identical to the previous survey how can you ensure a higher participation level to justify the expense?

    Stephen M Betts (SMB)
    A letter has been delivered to every house in the village so all residents are now aware of the poll. That is of a magnitude more than the efforts made to make people aware of the last survey, which was only done via the Contact magazine. Should people not choose to vote that is their right. That they be given the opportunity to vote is an obligation upon our elected officials.

    2. The previous survey method selected by the Neighbourhood Plan team allowed the views of those under 18 to be considered in the household response. Your poll will not allow the views of anyone under 18 to be considered. How do you propose to ensure the views of the youngsters in the village are included?

    Let us be specific. The previous survey, in addition to being very poorly advertised, only allowed one response per household. In the average household of two adults and two children, who had the casting vote? I would imagine that any concerned parents would have taken into account their children’s views during that survey and I have no reason to doubt that they would do the same this time.
    The big difference now is that every registered voter will have a say in how the issue is decided.

    Cherwell say they will not be validating the Accuracy of your Poll question. I believe you are asking about football pitches and a pavilion, however my understanding is that the proposal is not for solely football pitches and the proposed building is actually a community centre.

    – What has led you to the assumption that your question is an accurate representation of the proposal.

    Adderbury Parish Council and individual councillors have made it abundantly clear that football pitches and associated buildings are at the forefront of their intentions for the land in question.
    A few days ago on the APC stated the following:
    “Whatever the outcome of the Parish Poll, the Parish Council believes that football should be part of this site, although not exclusively and it hopes that residents will support the inclusion of football, as well as other sporting activities on the site.”
    The phrase ‘Whatever the outcome of the Parish Poll’ would seem to suggest that the APC are set on this course irrespective of the views of the village. The reason I called for the poll is because I am a firm believer in democracy. I believe that the whole village should have a say in this important issue which, if approved, will be a big commitment for the village. I would hope that the members of the APC are also believers in democracy and will accept the decision of the village, whichever way it goes.

    Have you spoken to the Chair of the Neighbourhood Plan team about any of this?

    I attended the last two Parish Council meetings where I expressed my concerns over the methods in which the previous survey had been carried out. On both occasions I asked the council to seek the wishes of the village through a full and proper survey. On both occasions I was listened to and then completely ignored. I believe that the poll that I have called for is therefore justified.

    • Nick Fennell

      will someone answer my questions of April 17 please?
      Would you please advise
      1. by what means we will be able to vote on May 11
      2. how the Parish Poll will be funded

      • Peter Burrows

        And mine on who gave what to whom and when.

        You don’t know ? Well there’s a surprise!

      • Stephen M Betts

        I can now confirm that the Parish Poll will be held on May 11th at Christopher Rawlins Primary School, between 4pm and 9pm.
        You have to attend the polling station in person and can only vote within these hours.
        If you think that the Parish Council should take note of your wishes then please vote on the day.

  • Nick Fennell

    Would you please advise
    1. by what means we will be able to vote on May 11
    2. how the Parish Poll will be funded

  • Jozef Leeman

    About the proposed new football pitches, a letter was put through my letter box about the Parish Poll on Thursday 11th of May 2017. My question is who is Stephen M Betts, that person is not a part of APC or is that person somebody that is working behind the scene with the support of the Horn Hill Road Councillors, Save Adderbury and A.C.A.G.

    • Peter Burrows

      Mr Leeman. You really must get your facts right. Was there anyone representing ACAG at the Parish Meeting? No! Was I at the Parish Meeting? No! Did I sign the request for the Parish Poll? No! I am a member of the Keep the Horton General Campaign; I am a member of the NMBVA (National Malayan and Borneo Veterans Association); I am an Old Rydalian. Do any of these bodies have a view on this discussion? No! Is there anything in ghe foregoing that you and your friends do not understand? I really do hope not! So for the very last time Mr Leeman, Mr Green and anyone else who thinks they know me ACAG IS NOT INVOLVED.

      • Andy Green

        Good job ACAG isn’t involved – an organisation chaired by someone who has failed to hold an AGM and remains as chairman despite its own constitution. Yes, ACAGs involvement would surely be further to the detriment of this already misguided campaign which is fuelled by untruths spread by an anonymous flyer. The flyer, of course, first appeared on the website on a man who last year spoke at a Cherwell planning meeting representing guess who … ACAG!

    • Stephen M Betts

      Mr Leeman, to answer your question I am a resident of Adderbury and have been for many years. I am not part of ACAG or any other organisation in the village, merely a private citizen who believes in democracy and that the whole village should have a say in how things are done and in what the APC does on their behalf. This was clearly explained in the letter that has been sent to everyone in Adderbury.

      • Jozef Leeman

        Dear Mrs Borrows, I am really surprised about your reaction and I am not apologising for anything. My qustion was about
        Mr Betts, and I am sorry, not about A.C.A.G. – and I am not a friend of Mr Green, I only met him once at a APC meeting.
        My quetion to you istead is: did you or did you not know that Mr Betts is a resident of Horn Hill Road and is
        a neighbour of one of the Horn Hill Road Councillors???
        For me this is the last time I write about all of this, simple reason; I refuse to give you the platform any longer ( is not
        designed for this) and I ask you politely to stop attacking me via
        J. Leeman

        • Stephen m Betts

          You are factually incorrect Mr Leeman, I do not live in Horn Hill Road.

    • Peter Burrows

      I would think under the circumstances that a response from Mr Green to my queries to him would not go amiss. That is of course ‘Andy’ if you have any answers which I and probably hundreds of others very much doubt.

      |Mr Leeman , do you not think that you should really apologise for your remarks concerning ACAG all of which were based on nothing more than supposition.
      unless of course you really think that you have and can produce evidence to the contrary?

      • Nigel Davies

        Adderbury Parish Council and Cherwell District Council each represented to me that the Chair Person and the Vice Chair Person signed the TR1 and that it had been filed with HM Land Registry. Mrs Bratt and Mr Griffiths said it at the Council meeting on the 4 April and Mr Lane (Head of Law and Governance Cherwell District Council and South Northamptonshire Council) wrote to me stating it to be so in his e-mail to me dated 12 April 2017 timed 1214hrs.

        Accordingly, I requested a copy of the TR1 filed with HM Land Registry and the copy arrived today, 19 April shortly before midday. Contrary to what each unequivocally has stated, as a matter of documentary fact the TR1 filed with HM Land Registry was evidently not even signed by the Chair Person and/or the Vice Chair Person of Adderbury Parish Council.

  • Nigel Davies

    The question is where does the legal advice end and the assertion/ argument begin? I don’t know.

    For example, is it legal advice – “…the Section 106 agreement and the Land Transfer document are different agreements. It was also confirmed that the Land Transfer document is in full compliance with the Section 106 agreement”?

    And is it followed by argument presented on the basis of legal advice – “It is the Land Transfer document which the Parish Council is bound by and as the transferee, the Parish Council has to comply with it and the restrictive covenant”?

    Of course, we, the reader, are left guessing because the full picture is not disclosed to us. Instead we are shown part of picture and are told we will see the rest later. We also do not know what question was asked to provoke the response received.

    Clearly, the text of box 11 of the TR1 complies with the s.106 Agreement, that is because the s.106 Agreement covenant is much, much broader than the narrow text of box 11 of the TR1 to which APC refer. That has never been in debate. The point is as a matter of contractual deed APC is not bound by the narrow text of the TR1 document which is presently been claimed and not just because that was not what was contracted by the parties to the s.106 Deed either.

    The remainder of the above article appears to be argument rather than objectivity.

    However, in any event, the TR1 document has to be executed as a Deed by the transferor (APC) and the transferee (Bloor Homes) where a covenant is to bind. If there is no covenant in the TR1 only the Transferor need sign. The Transferor signed the document and had the same witnessed too.

    For the contents of box 11 to bind the transferee, i.e. APC, had to sign the TR1 as a deed as well, as I say. This means that APC not only had to sign the TR1 document but the signing of the document had to be witnessed by another, and that witness had to sign recording that they did witness the signatures being applied to the deed.

    Furthermore, the Standing Orders of APC (15 and 22) also demand that to be an effective deed entered into by APC, the deed which is signed by two authorised signatories must also be witnessed as being signed by them by the Proper Officer and the Proper Officer’s signature applied too to the deed at that time. Only then is it a deed of APC.

    The snag is for APC and the arguments it has pursued to date, is that it appears that APC did not have the TR1 document it signed witnessed, nor for that matter does it seem to have been witnessed by the Proper Officer.

    Those of you who attended the Council meeting on 4 April 2017 may recall great play was made of there having been two signatories, with lots of earnest solemn nodding of heads and furrowed brows in support of what the Chair Person of APC was saying, but there was no mention of it being witnessed. The copy of the TR1 signed by the two signatories of APC which I have finally received appears to bear this out.

    So the TR1 stands but only in its ordinary form, it would seem. It does not create the covenant referred to in box 11 even under APC’s analysis for want of execution. There is also a question of Ultra Vires, but that need not be considered here. So APC is not bound by the narrow covenant it claims; nor for that matter does APC need to erect buildings on the site north of Milton Road.

    It would appear that the most cost effective option in terms of football and a hall is to develop the existing site and accommodation located at Lucy Packett fields, since it has all the services feeding the site already. Furthermore, there are no independently maintained records of flooding to Lucy Plackett field, at least none have been provided to me or to which my attention has been directed to, despite all my requests for such made to APC. Even if there is an issue drainage installation would resolve it.

    Adderbury and its inhabitants can have a hall of which it can be proud, which by being in the centre many can easily walk to, rather than drive to. Adderbury can have it without being saddled with the debt associated with green field development and it can have it without simultaneously pushing the boundary of our village further out (which those with land surrounding our villages would dearly love to develop). Doing so will deny land owners and developers another case for further development since the built boundary will not increase further in terms of buildings. A precedent will not be created.

    Further, Adderbury could have the land north of Milton Road used for what would appeal to a fair representation of our society rather than just duplicating what we already have. Let us be imaginative, let us use the land in a way that appeals to all age groups and interests. We have an opportunity, let us seize it.

    • Nigel Davies

      My apologies in paragraph 7 I wrote “However, in any event, the TR1 document has to be executed as a Deed by the transferor (APC) and the transferee (Bloor Homes)” it should read:
      “However, in any event, the TR1 document has to be executed as a Deed by the transferor (Bloor Homes) and the transferee (APC)”
      I blame my small phone screen!

  • Peter Burrows

    So who donated what to whom and when. It is my information that nothing has been ‘donated’ free gratis and for nothing. Will someone of presumably greater intellect care to tell me and all and sundry the answer to the question at the beginning of this response. So what are all these other sports you have in mind? How much room will be left for them after the pitches that APFC will require and the space needed for Cllr Mitchells much longed for Community Centre and adjoining car park for, he says sixty cars have been allocated. As a committee is to be set up you obviously have no idea now what it is that you want to provide. Have you told all the village what the other proposals are that you are unable to consider due to some restrictive covenant that it seems could be easily amended anyway and has yet to be properly legally sorted out. Why don’t you just admit it APC. Some of you, have always wanted new football pitches to accommodate a club that does not even have its roots in this village having been plonked onto our Village by the late and revered Charles Swain but which will give absolutely no benefit to the majority of its residents. I do wonder as to what it is that drives you on towards this goal!! Perhaps someone can and will tell me?

    • Peter Burrows

      Over a week has passed and no on has offered to answer my question about who gave what to whom and

      We keep seeing remarks about land that has been ‘gifted’ to the village. I beg to
      differ. No one has ‘given’ anything have they?

      Perhaps no one answers my query because the answer is one that ‘they’ do not
      want broadcast.

      If I am wrong please tell me and prove it and I will apologise and back down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (*).

Share This