School to consider appeal on homes plan

SCHOOL leaders say they are “disappointed” after multi-million-pound plans to build housing on a disused playing field

were turned down.

Maiden Erlegh Chiltern Edge School in Sonning Common applied for planning permission for 50 homes on the surplus land with one third being “affordable” for key workers.

But this was rejected by South Oxfordshire District Council, the planning authority, which said the benefits did not outweigh the loss of the land.

The school wanted to use money from the sale of the land to build new sporting facilities for its pupils and the wider community as well as make improvements to its “crumbling” infrastructure.

In a statement, the Maiden Erlegh Trust said: “We are naturally disappointed to have been notified that our various planning applications have been refused by officers and were not called in for planning committee review.  

“The applications were the product of many years of work undertaken by various community stakeholders who were aligned in their vision for developing a bright future for the residents of Sonning Common.  

“The holistic scheme would have allowed for much-needed investment in the infrastructure of Maiden Erlegh Chiltern Edge, the enhancement of local sports provision both on the school site and through significant financial contributions towards 3G pitch provision at Rotherfield United FC and the development of an activity hub at Memorial Hall Field.

“The scheme would also have enabled Bishopswood School to provide additional SEND school places in the south of the county, which is a priority for Oxfordshire County Council.”

The statement said the trust would now consider its next step.

Leigh Rawlings, who represents the village on the district council, said he was very disappointed by the district council’s decision.

Speaking a parish council meeting, he said: “I take the view that all the council’s concerns could have been dealt with as a condition.

“This was always part of the neighbourhood plan and one of the primary drivers of it. If the application goes to appeal the cost if going to come out of the school or sports provisions.

“Had they approved it with strong conditions no one would have objected.”

He said the district council had some concerns about drainage but added: “The nature of those concerns is not one which in my judgment would normally result in anything other than a condition.”

Adrian Duffield, the district council’s head of planning, who refused the application, said the development would result in “an unacceptable loss of playing field land”.

He said: “The need for, and benefits of, the proposed alternative sports provision, which would result in the loss of playing field, do not outweigh that loss.

“The development would result in the loss of a significant area of playing field land, which is not considered to be surplus, and no mitigation is proposed.”