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 it unusable on a number of occasions during the year.

The process for transferring the land is controlled under the 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 was nothing the Parish Council could do about the covenant, given that the land was being donated, not purchased, by the Parish Council.

Now that the land is in the Parish Council’s ownership, it has to work within the restrictive covenant which has been placed on it. 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.

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.

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.

Comments (16)

  • Susan Bradley

    Mr Green

    Below, you say:

    “Of course you are hell bent on ensuring they don’t have the opportunity to play football in our village so thank God there are some of us that care about their futures!”

    This seems like rather an unnecessary personal attack on a gentleman who has given vast amounts of his time to our community, including the “Keep the Horton General” campaign. Perhaps he has touched a nerve?

    It is for the sake of the futures of young people in our village that Mr Burrows is part of a campaign to save the Accident & Emergency unit and other critical medical services in Banbury.

    • Nigel Davies

      Dear Mr Green,

      1. Do you agree there is no acceptable basis upon which a Parish Councillor, the Council or the Council Clerk may discriminate against or in any way at all treat a specific Parishioner differently from any other Parishioner? If you do not please explain why.

      2. Do you agree that the sentence, “The Owner and the Developer covenant with the District Council as set out in the Second Schedule” is clear and understandable? If you do not, please explain why.
      (Source: paragraph 5.1 of page 5 of the Deed of Agreement dated 19 June 2014)

      3. Do you agree that the sentence, “…subject to a covenant that the transferee will not use the Milton Road Land otherwise than for sports and community uses” is clear and understandable? If you do not, please explain why.
      (Source: paragraph 9.1 on page 21 of the ‘Second Schedule’ of the Deed of Agreement dated 19 June 2014)

      4. Do you accept the word “covenant” does not appear in the following definition on page 13 of the ‘Second Schedule’ of the Deed of Agreement dated 19 June 2014? If you do not, please explain why.
      “”Milton Road Land” means land shown coloured blue on Plan 3 for the provision of sports pitches and a community facility such land to be transfered to the District Council (or its nominee) in accordance with paragraph 9 of this Part of the Schedule.”

      5. Do you accept that the above definition on page 13 of the ‘Second Schedule’ of the Deed of Agreement dated 19 June 2014 specifically refers you to “paragraph 9” in which at paragraph 9.1 it states “…subject to a covenant that the transferee will not use the Milton Road Land otherwise than for sports and community uses”? If you do not, please explain why.

      6. Do you accept that the that the Adderbury Plan Policy AD18 mirrors the covenant at paragraph 9.1 on page 21 of the ‘Second Schedule’ of the Deed of Agreement dated 19 June 2014 stating? If you do not, please explain why.

      7. Do you agree that there are no records maintained to demonstrate flooding of the Lucy Plackett Playing Field? If you do not, please explain why?
      (I asked for a copy of such records by e-mail on 1 April 2017, but under cover of the Clerk’s response e-mail on 3 April 2017 timed 1430hrs the Clerk did not direct my attention to or provide a copy of such.)

  • Andy Green

    To clear this up. People are getting confused between the direction of action in the narrative on the 106 and the legal statement of what it is bound by.

    In 9.1 under the title of Milton Road Land it indeed says “sports and community use”..


    What is the Milton Road Land. This is detailed in the legally binding descriptions earlier in the document where it clearly states:

    “Milton Road Land- means land coloured blue on plan 3 for the provision of SPORTS PITCHES AND A COMMUNITY FACILITY…”.

    The Parish Council is correctly working within this restriction.

    I am not going to reply to any more messages here as I believe this matter is now closed beyond further debate. If anyone wants to know where I got the 106 from I give a similar answer to someone at the Parish Meeting who told two pensioner he obtained it “because he was clever”. I am even more clever because not only have I obtained it I have understood it as well! Enjoy the sunshine.

  • David Bradley

    Just for the record, I atteneded far fewer than half the Parish Council meetings held during my time as a Councillor. It was two out of a possible eight or nine, but what that has to do with the innacuracies, publicly acknowledged at last night’s meeting, is beyond me.

  • Andy Green

    Ref David Bradley’s comments: stick to your guns Adderbury.org. This is not a misleading article it is a statement from the Parish Council. Mr Bradley should know this as he was a Parish Councillor for twelve months, although he only attended half the meetings during that time. The village will not be railroaded into believing false stories and half truths by a small group of people who have only their own personal interests to further. The inferred support for the alternative plan as detailed below and in the unsigned flyer only managed to gain support from around 30 people (all who live locally to the new sports field) at last nights Parish Council meeting … far far less than voted for the actual plan that is now moving forward.

    • Peter Burrows

      It appears that Mr Green is of the opinion that that if you tell the tale enough times you and it will be believed. I would be careful what you accuse people of. I fully support the right, of those who would wish, to be allowed to put forward their point of view as I am sure you are now aware of, something I suspect that would not wish to concur with. I have no interest of a geographic or pecuniary nature in this site as you well know Mr Green. So have a care Sir!

    • Susan Bradley

      Mr Green, I suggest that you seek an update from the councillors who were at the meeting last night, where Mrs Bratt confirmed that the council would be seeking legal advice on the issue of the Section 106 and the transfer documents. Clearly there is an issue here which must be clarified before we can move forwards.
      Having read the Section 106 document for myself, I can confirm that the covenant at section 9 does actually state “sports and community uses” – this is not a falsehood, this is a fact. You can check this for yourself by reading the document which The Save Adderbury website has kindly published.
      I expect the Parish Council will issue a corrected statement in due course, once Mrs Bratt has received legal advice on the matter.

    • Peter Burrows

      Again I must ask you Mr Green to be specific in your accusations of ‘false stories and half truths’ something that you most reliably always fail to bring yourself to do. For thirty or more residents to turn up to an Annual Parish Meeting is somewhat unusual. How many of those who think like you turned out – you certainly had more important business to attend to.

      • Andy Green

        Yes Mr Burrows – running the Scout meeting so the young people of the village have something to do. Of course you are hell bent on ensuring they don’t have the opportunity to play football in our village so thank God there are some of us that care about their futures!

  • David Bradley

    It is a mistake to say this land was donated to the Parish. The land appears to have been sold by the Colegrave family to the developers, or their agents, of the housing estate on the Aynho Road (Felden Chase). Bloor Homes who built the estate then transferred the land to CDC as part of their section 106 obligations. The s106 contribution is not a gift, it is compensation to the community of Adderbury to offset the damage caused by development. It is intended to mitigate that damage.

    For the sake of the reputation of Adderbury.Org, please correct this mistake and the others referred to in previous comments, or remove this potentially misleading article.

  • Andy Green

    I think people should be careful reading anything published on a certain so called village website purporting to save us all. It is highly dubious in its reliability, does not offer any substance bar hearsay, and the author does not have the courage to put their name to these scurrilous rumours. I believe that website should be discounted as simply the views of a single person with an axe to grind.

    With regards the use of the word “pitches” I am told it is in the section 106 agreement which was agreed between CDC and the previous landowner. Rumours of anything to the contrary are simply that – rumours designed to stir up trouble.

    I realise those living next to any development will do all they can to stop it and would prefer things left as they are. I’m sure the residents of Deene Close felt this way when houses were proposed on the Aynho Road field next to them. However the houses were imposed on them, but the village was told the Milton Road field -including a new home for the football club – was something the village would get as a benefit in return.

    So now is the time to move forward and make the best of this opportunity for the village as was intended by its original benefactor.

    Meanwhile I would suggest villagers should be set a better example by the parish councillors (and I use that description lightly) who continually back stab, refuse to involve themselves with anything other than nit picking and, to be honest, make themselves look ridiculous. They live close to this proposal and plainly have their own personal agendas rather than the best interests of the whole village. A small handfull of people claim all sorts of sculduggery at Parish Council meetings. i wonder though if in reality we are being advised to seek out such activities in the wrong area of the council…?

    • Peter Burrows

      Just your first paragraph causes a case for comment. What part or parts exactly are of ‘dubious reliability. Define the ‘scurrilous rumours’. Substantiate your accusation that the comments on saveadderbury’s website are the views of just one person. I suggest that you take the trouble to read the Section 106 agreement and find out for yourself the truth instead of making insinuations that others are not telling the truth. here is a link to this document on the save adderbury website! One must query that that football pitch on the Milton Road is a benefit. That is debateable. A benefit for whom, APFC presumably, who else – please define. All this invective which I must say we have become used to from yourself Mr Green is based presumably on the reports you have presumably received of a meeting that you did not attend. Nor did I for that matter but can claim good reason. No, I am not prepared to discuss that with you!

    • David Taylor-Evans

      Hi Andy – as the others have pointed out it became clear at the APC AGM last night that the restrictive covenant on the land has different wording in the original Section 106 compared to the Transfer document provided to APC.
      Both the Chair and Vice Chair who signed the Transfer document were very clear to the AGM that they had no prior knowledge of the change of wording. They stated quite correctly that they need to get legal advice as to how to proceed as Section 106 terms get automatically passed onto subsequent owners – they can be changed but there is very clear guidance under the Town and Country Planning Act as to how terms can get modified and this has not taken place as there would need to bepublic consultation.

      Give me call if you wanted more details – happy to explain it all.

      • Andy Green

        Hi David. I have the 106 and will post a reply above so everyone sees it. I hope you are well.

  • Susan Bradley

    Luckily, the restrictive covenant doesn’t mention football at all, it just says “sports and community uses”. “Sports” includes running tracks, cycling paths, and even walking. You can read the restrictive covenant for yourself at www.saveadderbury.co.uk This is an exciting opportunity for the whole village and I’m sure that the Parish Council will be asking the village what it wants.

  • David Taylor-Evans

    There are some clear mistakes in this article:

    1. The original transfer of land from the developer to Cherwell District Council (a Section 106) clearly states the land is for ‘sports and community uses’.

    2. The terms of a Section 106 contract are that all aspects of the agreed deal is automatically transferred to subsequent owners – in this case Adderbury.
    3. If there was a change of wording then the village should be told who instigated that change and what that means to the validity and legal status of the Transfer document from CDC to APC.

    4. Any change of terms or renegotiation of the conditions for a Section 106 should be dealt with with consultation and publicity much in the way any planning decision takes place. There is no public paper trail to show that this was done.

    5. It is also a mistake to say that the village is forced have football pitches, if indeed the Transfer document to APC actually states that – a change can be brought about to the use of the community land by simply using the application process under the Town & Country Planning Act – a process that would needed to be used to change the terms of the original Section 106 as the primary covenant for the land transfer

Leave a Reply

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

Share This