Reserved matters submission for the 265 home development on Eyebury Rd, Eye.

Please see below a summary of the objections by Eye resident Dale McKean to the Tanholt Farm development, you can find the full objection in the attachment below. Dale has consistently campaigned to make sure the developer of this 265 home estate is held to their obligations, especially around policy LP40, link below.

  1. I object based on Condition C6 as No Phasing plan and Implementation timescales have been submitted and approved by the Local Authority
  2. I object based on Condition C9 as No Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For each phase, as identified on the approved phasing plan secured under condition 5.
  3. I object based on Condition C10 as No construction environmental management plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
  4. I object to this application on Condition C21 because No implementation programme (phased developments) is included
  5. I object to this application on Condition C33 because No ecological design strategy (EDS) addressing the creation of mitigation and compensation habitat both on and off site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.


Prior to the commencement of any development a phasing plan and timetable for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall cover the phasing of the dwellings, new accesses to be created for the adjacent school land, all roads and cycle ways, SuDS features, landscaping and public open space areas. A timetable for their implementation shall demonstrate that the works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development.


Prior to the commencement of the development or any associated site clearance, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for each phase, as identified on the approved phasing plan secured under condition 5, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The CMP shall include the following:

  1. A scheme for the monitoring, reporting and control of construction noise and vibration including hours of working and scope for remedial action.
  2. A scheme for the control of dust and scope for remedial action in the event that dust is identified as an issue or any complaints are received.
  3. A scheme of chassis and wheel cleaning for all construction vehicles to include the details of the location and specification of a fully working jetted drive-thru bath type wheel wash system together with hard surfacing laid between the apparatus and public highway in either concrete or tarmacadam, to be maintained free of mud, slurry and any other form of contamination whilst in use. A contingency plan including if necessary the temporary cessation of all construction operations to be implemented in the event that the approved vehicle cleaning scheme fails to be effective for any reason.
  4. Haul routes to the site and hours of delivery.
  5. Measures to ensure that vehicles can access the site upon arrival so there is no queuing on the public highway.
  6. Details of site compounds, storage area and contractor and visitor parking.
  7. Details of the site enclosure or part thereof and gated site security.
  8. Confirmation that tree protection measures are in place.
  9. Confirmation that any demolition/construction will be carried out in accordance with the ecological management plan/method statement.
  10. A scheme for dealing with complaints.
  11. Details of any temporary lighting which must not directly light the public highway.

The CMP shall thereafter be adhered to throughout the relevant period of construction.


No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include the following:

  1. Summary of potentially damaging activities.
  2. Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”.
  3. Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements) including ensuring no Non-Native Invasive Species are spread across the site.
  4. The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features.
  5. The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works.
  6. Responsible persons and lines of communication.
  7. The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.
  8. Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.


The soft landscaping scheme reflecting the approved indicative masterplan to include
details for front and rear gardens, shared communal open spaces etc. to be submitted as
plans and particulars under condition 1 shall include the following details:

  • Planting plans including retained trees, species, numbers, size and density of planting;
  • An implementation programme (phased developments).

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details no later than first available planting/seeding season following first occupation of the dwelling(s) to which the planting relates or in accordance with any alternative timeframe as maybe agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority apart from the open space which shall be laid out in accordance with the requirement of condition 17.

Any trees, shrubs or hedges forming part of the approved landscaping scheme (except those contained in enclosed rear gardens to individual dwellings) that die are removed, become diseased or unfit for purpose in the opinion of the LPA within five years of the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next available planting season by the Developers, or their successors in title with an equivalent size, number and species being replaced. Any replacement trees, shrubs or hedgerows dying within five years of planting shall themselves be replaced with an equivalent size, number and species.


Notwithstanding the submitted ecological documents, prior to the commencement of development, an ecological design strategy (EDS) addressing the creation of mitigation and compensation habitat both on and off site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The EDS shall include the following:

  • Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works;
  • Review of site potential and constraints;
  • Detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) to achieve stated objectives;
  • Extent and location/area of proposed works on appropriate scale maps and plans;
  • Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance;
  • Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development;
  • Persons responsible for implementing the works;
  • Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance;
  • Details for monitoring and remedial measures; and
  • Details for disposal of any wastes arising from works.

The EDS should include provision for at least 8% of structures to include at least one bird/bat box of appropriate design and installation. The EDS shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

See the objection in full and a summary of the planning application below:

Comment from the website editor “It seems that everyone except the officers in the city council really have any concerns about how this estate will impact Eyebury Road and the village in general. Eye Primary School is already oversubscribed even before this estate is built, children are having to be shipped out of the village to other schools such as Newborough Primary School and the city council seems to be burying their heads in the sand about the issue. As said previously it should never have been included in the local plan at the size it is to begin with at least without the appropriate infrastructure in place first.

Related links

Eye Library and Youth centre petition presented to full council

Resident Dale McKean gave an impassioned plea at this week’s full council to save Eye library and Youth Centre on Crowland Road in the village. The building which was originally the villages school then a library and Youth Club, was gifted to the council, but now finds itself in the firing line to be sold. As well as the youth club the centre is used by the Brownies, Rainbows and Girl Guides. You can read more about the sale in our previous story here. The Mayor, Councillor Nick Sandford invited Dale to present the petition which has over 1,517 signatures. Just a few comments from the meeting below. I’ve left out the party politics, if you want to see them and the full meeting you can see it here: Continue reading “Eye Library and Youth centre petition presented to full council”

Allison Homes present at Eye Parish Council meeting

Eye Parish Council yesterday saw Allison Homes giving a presentation on the Tanholt Development and local resident Dale McKean giving a response on behalf of the parish council.

One of the points was the implementation of a Construction Management Plan (CMP). Construction Management Plan (commonly referred to as a CMP) is a plan that outlines the proposed building works to be undertaken and how the constructor intends to manage the project to minimise the impact on the local residents during the works: “For the Eyebury Road development this means having a mandatory access to the site to be from the direction of Oxney Rd rather than Eyebury Rd which has a weight limit and is unsuitable for construction traffic and has the school, pre-school and after school wrap around facility (Longer opening hrs than school). Below are key Issues, other items are also needed in condition for the CMP.

  • There should be no parking of construction and delivery vehicles off site.
  • Eye Primary School is in urgent need of expansion so the access road to the school drop off area on the northern boundary of the site should be provided as work begins so the school construction traffic can use it and the school expanded.
  • Vehicle traffic adjacent to the Residential Care/Nursing Home (Field House) should be kept to an absolute minimum over the period of the build as many residents have dementia and any noise will be very upsetting.
  • There should be strict control of construction noise, vibration, dust mitigation, clearing of mud on Eyebury Rd and air quality for our children and residents, with a complaints procedure.
  • Building operations hours need to be limited so as not to impact the residents adjoining the site.
  • The Public Right of way should be safely open throughout the development with suitable security fencing from the building sites.”

As seen in the news on this website many times, this has been a contentious development due to the size and proximity to Eye Primary School to what can already be a busy road on at school opening and closing times.

Due to the pressure on budgets local authorities can be afraid of being challenged by large businesses due to the costs involved. Added housing targets that have to be met and the erosion of planning regulation over the past decade has meant developers can have the upper hand. And more planning reforms are due to take place in 2024, which aim to further simplify the planning process for home builders.


Outline Planning Permission approved for Tanholt Farm Site – Dec 23

Outline planning permission 19/00836/OUT for the construction of up 265 homes on Eyebury Road next to the primary school was approved on the 18 Dec 2023. Supporting letter here. Without a doubt this is the largest single housing development in the villages history.

Continue reading “Outline Planning Permission approved for Tanholt Farm Site – Dec 23”

Eye Library and youth centre at risk of sale

As reported in this week’s Peterborough Telegraph and by the BBC, Peterborough City Council is planning to sell the building that houses the village’s youth club and library. The review into the sale of the building was approved by Peterborough City Council’s Conservative cabinet in July 23 (Appendix B – Disposal Plan) and council officers have already completed a valuation of the building. In 2019 the government investigated the council to see if they broke the law by selling public assets to help meet its running costs. The issue is many of these assets to bring in much needed revenue in the form of rent over a longer term, selling these assets may bring a chunk of money in one big hit but once they are gone they are gone for good.

The governments asset disposal guidance calls for local authorities to dispose of assets they deem as surplus in fact: “At the Spending Review 2015, the government announced a package of measures to enable the release of public sector assets for more productive use, supporting growth and efficiency.” As it says “assets that could be made surplus” not assets just assets that are currently surplus.

The building which is in the village’s conservation area dates back to 1855 was originally built to be the village’s school. It was a working school for almost 100 years but when the current school on Eyebury Road opened in 1951 it closed. Today it continues to be the villages library and is used by both the youth club and the Girl Guides group with nearly 70 children between the age of nine and 12 using the Eye junior youth club. The City Council has said Manor Farm community Centre could be used to provide the facilities in the current building but it isn’t a suitable alternative for a number of reasons, including a lack of storage, no secure outside play area and unsuitable flooring. I’m sure if the council found a million pounds to build a suitable extension to Manor Farm Community Centre before they close and sell the current building, residents maybe more amenable.

MP Paul Bristow said “It’s a fantastic, thriving community hub for young people in Eye. The resources there are already stretched, this Youth Club is and will be a vital hub for the community as the village continues to grow.”

The city council has found itself with a multi-million budget deficit and needs to sell assets to stave off bankruptcy as happened to Birmingham City Council. The council’s overall debt has also increased from around £250 million in 2014 to over £450 million today which has also added to the pressures. This won’t have been helped by the recent purchase of the council’s HQ, Sandmartin House for over £47 million, the loan of £23 million to Empower for a solar panel scheme which went bust a few years ago, a £15 million loan to the developers of the Hilton Hotel on Fletton Keys which also went bust and £3 million spent on developing a solar farm project close to Newborough which then didn’t happen.

Deputy Council Leader and Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Finance John Howard said in the Peterborough Telegraph: “That this is a review, no decisions have been made” and “Every decision that is made will go through the council scrutiny process and cabinet.”

We will be following the outcome of these meetings closely.

An appeal has been launched by resident Dale McKean to try to keep the building in public hands. Dale said to the BBC: “We already have hundreds of signatures. Eye residents are very angry and children are very upset at the council’s decision. No one was consulted or informed about this.” “The village has grown considerably in the last 10 years and these facilities are absolutely needed for young families and children”.

According to the census the village has grown by over by over a thousand residents in the past 10 years, the highest growth in a village in the Peterborough area and more community facilities are needed, not less.

Our MP Paul Bristow has written to the council and will be at the library on Friday 17 November at 11am to talk to residents.

Lets hope common sense prevails and the building is retained in public hands…

In the media

Parking restrictions at McDonalds in Eye

Please remember that there is a one hour parking restriction at the McDonalds in Eye, the McDonalds website makes no mention of this. I have heard of a few cases where customers have been caught out and fined. The parking restrictions are enforced by not the store itself. Met Parking also receive the proceeds of the fines, not McDonalds, although the contract with the parking company to manage the car park will be with McDonalds.

Your car registration is recorded by ANPR as you enter the property and then as you leave. If the time is longer than an hour you will get a fine. Whether you agree with this method of enforcement of not, by entering and parking you are agreeing to the terms and conditions which is why it can be challenging to appeal.

A spokesperson for McDonald’s said: “We have parking restrictions in place at a number of our restaurants, with a time limit to ensure there is adequate parking for all of our customers. We make this clear to our customers with signage in the car park. If a customer feels they have been wrongly ticketed, we would encourage them to get in touch with the third party contractor who issued the ticket by way of appeal.”

Matt Jarett

McDonald’s also doesn’t want people parking in their car park and visiting the adjacent car sales company which is why the time limit was introduced.

If you wish to register a complaint with McDonalds and you think the time limit is too short please visit The restaurant in Eye is a franchise restaurant which is owned by franchisee, Matthew Jarrett of M PJ Enterprises Ltd.

You can also read more here:


Eye Green McDonalds, Crowland Road, Peterborough. PE6 7TN

Woodland to the east of Dogsthorpe sold

This piece of woodland, also known as Dosthorpe Spinney to some is just outside the western boundary of Eye Parish. It was sold for £133,000 in May 2021 and there have been concerns about its future. There is very little woodland to the east of Peterborough with only a few small patches surrounded by farmland. Trees play a vital role in removing pollutants from the air, filtering atmospheric pollutants like sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide through their leaves. For the busy junction, that the A15/A47 junction is, it may go some way towards counteracting the pollutants generated.
Continue reading “Woodland to the east of Dogsthorpe sold”

City of Peterborough grows ever closer

Plans for 1,130 new homes on land within the ‘Norwood Extension’ are to be put forward by the owners, Church Commissioners, Central England Co-op and Milton Estate. Taylor Wimpey, who reported an operating profit of £850.5 million in 2019 has already applied for planning permission for 870 homes with a two-form primary school and local centre on the Norwood extension. The eastern point of the site is just 0.3 miles from the top end of Hodney Road. Continue reading “City of Peterborough grows ever closer”

Fly-tipping, what can be done about it?

The Reaches, Eye

It was welcoming to see our local MP take the fly-tipping debate to parliament this week. The illegal dumping of waste is the scourge of the countryside, especially close to large urban populations. It’s not only an eyesore but can be a health hazard, not to only to humans but wildlife as well. It isn’t unique to this area, you’ve only got to see this feed on the BBC website to see the extent of the problem. In an analysis of fly-tipping done in 2019 Peterborough was named the third worse place in the UK for fly-tipping.

All the photos on this page have been taken in the past two years around Eye and Newborough and can be used copyright and attribution free in stories relating to flytipping.

If you spot fly-tipped waste report it to Peterborough City Council: Continue reading “Fly-tipping, what can be done about it?”