Campaigners challenge full council meeting over plans to fence off open land near Peterborough school

There was a heartfelt plea from several residents of Werrington who asked city councillors to reconsider the fencing of the community fields there - but they were told the planning application had been handled properly.

Plans for the fence around the fields - which have been shared between Ken Stimpson Community School and the community for decades - have been approved by Peterborough City Council.

It involves 2.4m weldmesh fencing to surround 46,000 square metres of land and was put forward after safeguarding concerns from the school and will cost £73,236.28.
Addressing members of the Full Council at their online meeting, campaigner Frances Green said: “This is a heartfelt plea for you to reconsider the unsympathetic fencing off of Werrington community fields.

“I’ve been a resident of Werrington for over 57 years and for the majority of my life have been able to use this open space.

“We need to be protecting our open spaces for generations to come and this area is of natural beauty and a beautiful tree lined area.

“It has been used jointly and safely by the community and the school with never a documented issue. In fact, students were allowed out at lunch and break times to use the open fields often leaving litter strewn across the area. Although I appreciate that in the present climate safeguarding is a necessary fact the small area and amount of times the field is used for PE is minimal and always with staff present, the amount proposed to be taken is unnecessary.

“The students for PE have access to tennis courts, squash courts, Astroturf football pitches, hard surface playing areas, a large sports hall and a large gym. This is for one double lesson a week per student. There is therefore no need for such a large amount of land to be taken.

“The proposed fencing is an ugly structure which will spoil the whole landscape. A more sympathetic fencing, in keeping with that existing, on a much smaller scale would cover the needs of safeguarding as well as to protect the vast majority of the area for the wider community.

“It is stated the area will be open to the public out of school hours but who will want to walk within prison walls? The community did have use of gym/sports facilities and library but these have already been heavily restricted. The school and area were built as ‘dual use’ not ‘single use’.

“The area proposed to be fenced off encompasses utilities, how will these be accessed? Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the area? How come there is never ever money for schools or weeding or other community amenities but suddenly tens of thousands can be found for something the majority of the community do not want?

“What guarantees do we have that this area will not be built on in future? What guarantees do we have that more land will not subsequently be taken away from the community?

“A public meeting where all ideas are put on the table would, I feel, be beneficial to all parties. I am sure I am not the only one that understands the need for safeguarding but this needs to be achieved for the benefit of all the ‘community’.”

Cllr Peter Hiller said: “The council were approached by the school with a planning application for this fence and therefore we applied due process planning rules in deciding whether or not the application was correct and it was approved.

“I hear the emotion that you have put into the argument for the use of this land, but under the terms of the consent that we did give as a planning committee a community-use agreement must be entered into by the applicant.

“Now while that’s not finalised, I understand that the pitches can be formally booked by the public outside of school times and, as with any formal agreement operated by the council, the area will be freely available for casual use outside of school time.”

Another resident of Werrington, Mr Keith Dalton also questioned the need for the erection of the fence, and said: “Please can you answer why, when the Peterborough Development Corporation designed the open fields for the benefit of the local community and residents, that permission can be granted to erect an eight-foot fence for very unsubstantiated reasons without consultation of most of the people who live and enjoy the scenery of the area? For instance, why hasn’t a single household in Canonsfield or Cranemore been consulted?

“They live within 150 yards of the work and use the area constantly. New Werrington was designed to provide open green space for such people who have often settled here for that reason. Furthermore, this construction will be used for minimal time in each year by school pupils who spend all their breaks unsupervised in the Werrington centre.”

Cllr Peter Hiller again responded, saying: “The publicity for this application consisted of site notices that you may or may not have seen, press notification, neighbour notification letters were all issued in accordance with proper current planning legislation, as well as Werrington Neighbourhood Council being properly consulted on the application as were the Ward Councillors.

“While the Neighbourhood Council didn’t object to the proposals officers reported that there had been a number of comments recorded – 45 in support and 39 objecting – and all of these were given to members of the planning committee in order for them to make a fully-informed decision on this matter.

“Recognising the local interest, the application was duly ‘called-in’ by Cllr John Fox and both his and Cllr Judy Fox’s opinions were addressed to the committee on March 10 plus that of the applicant from the school and from two objectors.

“We debated the issue and a result by majority of 7-4 voted in favour of approval; so, I really cannot see your argument that not enough was done in respect of consultation.”

Cllr John Fox said: “Would the cabinet member for planning please enquire with planning officers that if a possible controversial planning application is forthcoming in a ward, that they liaise with ward councillors to see if there is any feasibility of possibly extending the area of consultation.

“Recently we have had a planning application submitted and after the decision was taken several hundred people have complained because they did not know about the plan as they would have objected.

“I do appreciate that it is not legally required to consult with a much larger area than usual but I feel that by liaising with the ward councillors, who will have local knowledge of the layout of the area, that no immediate houses that would be directly affected would be left out of the consultation process.”

Cllr Hiller replied: “I must stress my earlier argument that everything was done in respect of this application in accordance with current planning legislation.

“We debated the matter at length, heard from several interested parties including yourself Cllr Fox and then determined on its merits or otherwise coming to a conclusion by majority and approve the application.

“In matters like these the planning process pertains to consents or refusals of applications; it doesn’t pertain to matters of land ownership – man ownership is a completely separate legal matter.”

Members of the Full Council gave no indication that they would reconsider the application as all had been done properly in accordance with current planning legislation.