PROTESTERS against plans by the Sangster family to build 39 homes on a playing field next to Rabley Wood View, Marlborough, owned by Wiltshire Council have accused the planning authority of a conflict of interests.

Guy and Ben Sangster, sons of Robert Sangster the late horse racing tycoon, have appealed against a decision by Wiltshire Council to turn down plans for the houses on Wiltshire Council-owned land, which includes a children’s play area, used for recreation.

But this week campaigners claimed that the council as planning authority and owners of the playing field could not be impartial.

Jayne Baker, of The Thorns, Marlborough, said: “Wiltshire Council only wants to make money out of this deal.

"The document says that they want to 'make best use of its assets'. So this application has never been about providing houses for Marlborough, just about making money for Wiltshire Council budget regardless of the damage to the environment and the danger of making our children play in a totally unsuitable area which has no natural surveillance and is close to sources of open water.”

Wiltshire Council has insisted that it had never tried to hide the fact that it owned the playing field.

A spokesman said: "The application form online makes clear that Manton House Estate are the applicants and that they have served notice on Wiltshire Council as landowner...

"We do have two distinct roles in this as landowner and local planning authority and that’s been very clear from the start."

An archaeological study is about to start on the land next to Rabley Wood View ready for the appeal. People have until May 26 to send their views on the scheme to the planning inspectorate.

Marlborough town clerk Shelley Parker said: “The response to the appeal will be discussed at the planning committee on Monday so we really to reiterate that the town council objected to the applications when they were considered by the town council as a consultee in the process.

"The town council also sent along a representative to Wiltshire Council’s eastern area planning committee to speak in objection to the applications last year.”

The original plans were rejected for three main reasons including having a harmful impact on the landscape and scenic beauty of the area, failing to provide an acceptable replacement recreation area in terms of quality and failure to submit an archaeological assessment of the site.