Eyebury Road – Tanholt Farm development update

So we arrive at the planning permission stage of this process. Despite concerns by residents that the size of the estate will cause major traffic issues along Eyebury Road at rush hour this ‘project’ has gone ahead anyway and not just with the indicative 250 homes in the local plan but planning permission is being sort for 300, 20 per cent more. The village will have been really let down by Peterborough City Council if this goes thorough in its current state. To Larkfleet it must be a forgone conclusion, they’ve started setting out even before planning permission has been granted…

You can make comments on the planning application here.

The last village census in 2011 recorded homes with no car: 13%, one car: 48%, two or more cars 39%. An estate with 300 homes could easily have 500+ cars once complete. If each car goes in and out of the estate once a day that could easily be 1000 extra vehicle movements per day along Eyebury Road, the majority 8-9am and 5-6pm on weekdays. And that ignores, visitors, delivery vans, and other service vehicles.


LP40 was supposed to be the saving grace in all this. At the time I thought this could be answered ‘on the back of a fag packet’ but I was hoping it would mean a more in-depth look at how this development would affect the village. My original view was more or less correct. Although land is being set aide for the school this comes out of the CIL (See below) it has made little difference to the number of houses.

The Local Plan

The local plan was approved by the City Council on the 24 July 2019.

Cllr David Seaton was on his mobile and Cllr Peter Hiller on his laptop while Cllr Steve Allen was giving his speech about the concerns of Eye’s resident to the Tanholt development… Cllr Peter Hiller’s ward has only 33 homes in the local plan.

Here’s Eye ward Cllr Steve Allen’s response at the meeting: “Thank you Mr Mayor. I rise actually to support the local plan. There are reservations which I must speak out about. Eye residents have raised many objections and are rightly concerned the ability of the current infrastructure to handle yet more houses and the resulting increase in traffic in a community that understandable its fair share of development over recent years. The view taken by myself and my fellow ward councillors has always been that we will only support further development in the village if the infrastructure gains are forthcoming to the benefit of all residents. That said I believe the local plan as approved by the inspectors and with us this evening is very comprehensive and well thought out and to the benefit of the whole city. There a lot of excellent work been put in there by officers which I commend.

Although not in the plan I understand now that there are proposals for an east-south relief road from the A47 known as Haynes farm to the Eastern Industry part of Peterborough. This is now high on a project agenda for the local authority. This affective bypass will comprehensively deal with the traffic issues Eye residents face on a daily and morning and evening commute and particularly deal with the problems of the inadequate Eyebury Road rat run with the understanding that the project being firmly on the near horizon addresses my major objection to the development in the village and to that affect I’m happy to support my cabinet colleagues recommendations for the plan adoption.

The vote was:

  • 42 in favour
  • 0 against
  • 16 abstained

As above it would have made very little difference if our councillors had voted against the proposal.

In the local plan there are indicative numbers:

  • LP39.2: South of Northam Close, 1.13ha –  17 dwellings (now 35)
  • LP39.3: Land at Guilsborough Road – 3.36 ha – 55 dwellings (Was originally 35). More here.
  • LP39.8: Tanholt Farm, Eye – 13.3ha – 250 dwellings (300 applied for.)


For every house built the council get a CIL (Community infrastructure levy) payment. A flat fee is charged for each square metre of floor area in new developments. For cash strapped councils like Peterborough this is a godsend but some may think this causes a conflict of interests as the more houses that are built the more money the council receives. Eye is also in the moderate value zone which can make it more profitable for house builders. I’ve still not got to the bottom of why the city was divided up like this, if you know please let me know.

So to sum it up we say goodbye to a bit more countryside and welcome to 300 new homes. I’m sure if it wasn’t for the national policy which recommends that a separation between towns, cities villages should be retained the council would already be allowing houses to be built on the fields between the village and the city of Peterborough and Eye would just become another township.


Related pages

External pages


So why have we ended up in this situation with skyrocketing housing prices with swathes of countryside being urbanised? Well the ‘elephant in the room’ is population growth.


In May 2004, the 15 states of the European Union (EU-15) welcomed ten new Member States in what was the largest expansion in the history of European integration. During the accession negotiations, an optional transitional period of seven years was established. The Labour government at the time decided to ignore this and open the borders immediately.  This decision was controversial: politicians later admitted that they had only decided against barring freedom of movement under the assumption that all of the other EU countries would also impose no restrictions on freedom of movement: in fact only Ireland and Sweden followed suit.

Its easy to see the consequences in the chart above and the population has been increasing by between 400,000 and 500,000 people per year since this decision was made and is credited as one of the causes of Brexit in which Eye, Thorney & Newborough voted by 1846 remain and 3568 leave .

Of course when you’ve got population growth this high whatever the cause it puts pressure on services and of course all these people need homes to live in which is why we have the housing crisis we have today.

Another note is the UK imports 48% of the total food consumed and the proportion is rising, this isn’t great for food security. If for any reason imports were cut off a large percentage of the population could starve. Additionally for every piece of farmland that is turned into housing or industry it reduces the land for growing food. According to the ‘iNews’ England has a population density of around 426 people per square kilometer which in one of the highest in the EU.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *