A COMMUNITY group has failed in its attempt to have a popular open space made into a village green.

The Swindon Walcot and Parks Group sought the status for Buckhurst Field, between Buckhurst Crescent and Chickerell Road, but their application was rejected by Swindon Council’s footpath and rights of way committee on Thursday.

Legal officers for the council argued the bid failed to demonstrate, under the Commons Act 2006, that a significant number of local residents had indulged as of right in sports and pastimes on the land for at least 20 years, and continued to do so at the time of the application.

The Act says such usage should be “without secrecy, force or permission”, so the carnivals, fetes and other events held at the location do not count as they need permission, or a licence, from the council.

Speaking at the committee Kehinde Awojobi, the head of conveyancing, environment and contracts for the council, said: “Based on the evidence the use has not been as of right, therefore the statutory criteria for village green status has not been met.

“It would be unlawful to grant the application.”

Of the 52 questionnaires handed in by SWAP in support of their bid, 20 respondents said they had used the field for 20 years or more but their addresses were not included as required.

In the formal consultation there were 13 letters of objection, including one from Swindon Council, the landowner, all of which were addressed.

Andrea Magill, of Somerville Road, whose letter of objection was included, said: “Why do we need a village green? It’s always going to be open space.”

The argument that Buckhurst Field is registered as a public open space under the Public Health Act 1875, protecting it from development, was emphasised by the council’s legal team.

But Coun Mark Dempsey (Lab, Parks), said: “We let people down if we get too drawn into particulars.

“It is clear the site has been used for sports and pastimes for more than 20 years.

“I question the advice you are giving as officers.”

John Brownlee, the chairman of SWAP, said the land was well protected under the Act but it was not 100 per cent safe. He also attacked the committee’s decision.

“We were disgusted with it,” he said. “We are going to take it back to our membership to see what they want to do.

We will consider appealing after the election, there is a very good chance of it. We are very upset.”