Campaigners have spoken of their dismay at new plans to resolve a seven year dispute over the use of Peterborough’s Werrington Fields.

Residents and the Save Werrington Fields group say new proposals by land owner Peterborough City Council are naive and merely involve handing public land to a school.

The campaigners have been fighting to ensure a large expanse of open land that has been regularly used by the public is not fenced off and given to the Ken Stimpson Academy for sports and PE lessons.

But in a move to end the dispute and halt legal action, the council’s ruling cabinet is expected to agree on March 24 to the creation of two leases.

placeholder image — Werrington Fields, Peterborough

The first will be a lease between the council and the 4Cs Academy Trust, which runs the school, for part of the playing fields, known as Area C and the size of about eight football pitches, but excluding a 15 metre strip of land that will be retained by the council for community use, such as dog walking.

The second will be the creation of a new Community Use Agreement between the council and the trust that will enable Area C to be used by the community at specified times after school and at weekends.

The school has maintained it needed this amount of land for its sports provision and that the area should be properly fenced off to safeguard pupils.

But Werrington resident Tony Forster said: “The only gift here is the public land the council is handing to the Academy Trust.

This image shows the area of Werrington Fields that campaigners have suggested could be fenced off compared to the Area C proposed by the Ken Stimpson Academy and Peterborough City Council

Council chiefs seek compromise with school bosses and residents over use of Pete...

"It's really naive to agree a lease before the details of the Community Use Agreement are worked out.

He added: “The 15 metre strip of space they are leaving unfenced is between a hedgerow and the fence.

"We are really worried this will create a corridor for anti-social behaviour to thrive - damaging for students and residents alike.

"And they are trying to disguise the fact that the only access locals will have is if they pre-book, are part of a sports club and pay. They've taken our green space and are going to flog it back to us.”

Councillor Katy Cole, the council’s Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, said: “After many years of procrastination we are close to being able to agree a way forward.

"It is so important, for the children of the school, that we do not allow any further delay.

“The recommendations to Cabinet look to meet the needs of all parties – the school, its pupils and the residents - but it is also the best option for taxpayers as a whole as it avoids what we know could have been a very costly Judicial Review process running into tens of thousands.”

Council reacts to criticism over fencing plans for proposed school fields.

The council’s plans to fence off Area C have been criticised by Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mayor Paul Bristow.

In a social media post he said the council would have to buy a new fence because fencing that had been bought some time ago was now no longer considered to be ‘appropriate’.

He said the council planned to fence off the ‘vast majority’ of the area without a right of access to local people.

Mr Bristow also said the council was to pay its legal costs and those of the academy, which had sought a High Court judicial review into the dispute.

But Cllr Cole said: "To correct Mr Bristow, we will be using the fence which remains in storage.

"We will also need to purchase additional fencing, once the decision is made as to the area to be enclosed.

"In addition, one of the recommendations to cabinet is for a community use agreement which will allow the community to access the area to be fenced outside of school hours - a further point misrepresented by Mr Bristow.

So far the council has spent £73,236 on fencing.

Extra fencing will cost £10,000 plus VAT. The Academy Trust has agreed to contribute £20,000 towards the cost of the fence.

She added: “With regards to legal costs, the Cabinet report makes clear that we will negotiate for each party to pay their own costs, but if this cannot be achieved we will pay the school’s reasonable legal costs.

"The recommendations to Cabinet next week look to try and meet the needs of all parties – the school, its pupils and the residents - but it is also the best option for taxpayers as a whole as it avoids what we know could have been a very costly legal Judicial Review claim process potentially costing the council a minimum of £100,000.”