Frustrated residents from a new High Wycombe housing estate are taking their long-running fight over the maintenance of their play areas to the Houses of Parliament amid claims they feel “angry and misled” by developers.

Those who live on the Pine Trees estate in Daws Hill Lane have been faced with a string of problems surrounding the estate’s play areas, which were fenced-off for nearly two years after they were installed amid a row over who would maintain them.

The Pine Trees Residents’ Association claims hundreds of buyers were “misled” by Taylor Wimpey over a five-year period into thinking the council would eventually be adopting the newly-constructed parks - but this year they have found out the developer was transferring responsibility to a management company instead.

Outraged that residents could become responsible for covering the “risks and uncapped costs” of maintaining a public park, they launched a petition pleading with Buckinghamshire Council to adopt the estate’s children’s parks instead.

Presenting their petition to High Wycombe councillors back in July, Steve Gill, on behalf of the residents’ association, said: “The estate is providing new council tax revenue which is paying for other parks, why not ours? The park could be funded by special expenses like other parks around High Wycombe.

“For almost five years, hundreds of buyers continued to be misled into thinking the local authority would adopt the parks. How could this be allowed to happen?”

The petition prompted fresh discussions between Buckinghamshire Council and Taylor Wimpey, because the council will not take on responsibility for the parks without a “commuted sum” from the developers.

A commuted sum is a financial contribution that is seen as a type of compensation for the council taking on the future maintenance – and could have been in excess of £1 million over 25 years.

Back in November 2013, Wycombe District Council planning officers recommended Taylor Wimpey’s housing estate plans were approved, but only if a “commensurate contribution to the provision of future maintenance of open spaces” was secured by planning obligation.

Despite this, a section 106 agreement between Taylor Wimpey and the council was approved – without any mention of a commuted sum.

Realising the stalemate between the council and developers, fresh talks were organised this summer to discuss the possibility of getting that commuted sum from Taylor Wimpey so the council could look after the parks.

But the talks were unsuccessful, with Taylor Wimpey confirming it would not be able to pay the council that amount to look after the parks, which have now been fully opened.

Seemingly at an impasse, the council said the parks would have to remain with Taylor Wimpey’s management company because they are “not in a position” to be able to adopt any parks without cash from developers and there is no extra budget in the town committee’s special expenses budget – especially as it could prompt residents on other new developments in the area to ask for the same.

Despite this, the residents’ association is not giving up its fight – and with the help of Wycombe MP Steve Baker, has launched a Parliamentary petition that will be presented to Parliament “as soon as the authorities allow”.

Speaking at the last High Wycombe Community Board meeting on October 27, Mr Gill urged councillors to put the issue forward to a select committee. He said: “What we don’t have is any understanding of the disappearance of the commuted sum from the original section 106 agreement, nor any understanding why the Land Registry paperwork continued to show that the council would be adopting the park and all the expectations of the buyers associated with that. That is something that is glossed over, it gets buried, and it’s very concerning for us.”

Cllr Lesley Clarke OBE said councillors should support the residents’ association with the petition to government. She said: “I believe that developers, once they finish building, should clear off and stop charging residents for more things on their development. These people are going to be constantly paying for more and more and more.

“I propose we follow the petition through government and see what happens. As Steve has said, there is something wrong – the section 106 is flawed, we don’t seem to have held the developer to account.

“There is something inherently wrong with the document that has been given to all residents and I seriously believe we should support them while it goes through Parliament and await the outcome because I do think this could impact all developments in Buckinghamshire.

“We need to show solidarity with residents.”

Cllr Julia Wassell added: “If people bought their houses thinking the local authority was going to maintain the thing and then found out they had to pay, that is quite serious. Seriously misleading.”

Councillors agreed to wait and see what happens with the Parliamentary petition process.