Larkfleet Homes have come up with a proposal for the area of land to the east of Eye behind the Primary School. The proposed development will include up to 280 homes with access to the site from Eyebury Road, this is 30 more homes than specified in the Local Submission Plan.
Not to be taken lightly this is one of the largest single estates added to the village in its history.
The proposals also include additional land (around 0.8 hectares – total area of the new development is around 13 hectares) and a new access point for the school. The additional land would be paid for from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL*), which Larkfleet Homes would need to pay. According to Larkfleet this is likely to be in excess of one million pounds for the estate.
* The CIL is a non-negotiable charge (represented as £ per m²) on the amount of new floor space created by development. Peterborough City Council adopted its current CIL policy in April 2015. Eye Parish Council receive 15 per cent of the CIL capped at £100 per home (Parish Councils with a Neighbourhood plan in place receive 25 per cent of the CIL). The rest goes to the local authority to be used for community infrastructure that is required to support the population growth.
LarkFleet will be holding a public exhibition at Eye Primary School on Tuesday 22 May 2018, between 5pm and 8pm . Representatives of Larkfleet will be on hand to answer questions. Click here for further information. As part of LP40 the developer must show a high level of engagement with appropriate stakeholders which include the local community.
So has the Local Plan has been agreed by the secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government?
Actually no, the Local Plan has not been approved. Larkfleet must be confident that they are able to meet the key principles of LP40* and that the comments from residents will make no difference to the submission plan that that they have pressed ahead with the proposal regardless.
*LP40 is a section that was added to the Peterborough Local Plan – submission plan which was sent to the Secretary of State. LP40 specified that an outline planning application comprising, and amongst other matters, a comprehensive master plan for the whole area should be submitted and approved by the council before development commenced. Its in full at the bottom of this page.
Is democracy dead when it comes to planning?
If it isn’t, its on life support. Local authorities have targets to meet, and changes to planning law under the current government have meant it’s easier for planners to get planning approval for new sites. Even if the council does reject a planning application, the developer can appeal to the Secretary of state and they can override the councils decision. This happens more often than not. An appeal by a developer can also cost the city council time and money so they will more likely approve a development unless again it has sound legal reasons for not doing so.
One of the biggest contentions is the entrance to Eyebury Road. If access to the site had been onto Thorney Road the entire site may have been less of an issue. Eyebury Road can already be a busy road at times. It’s also home to the villages primary school and a lot of children are in the area at the start and end of the school day. At southern end the road is a single lane section with passing places. At the northern end is the sharp bend around the village church.
The last village census in 2011 recorded homes with no car: 13%, one car: 48%, two or more cars 39%. An estate with 280 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.
How many extra parking spaces will be created in the centre of the village to cope with all the extra cars these homes will have?
Zero. Yes that’s correct, it will be zero.
What affect will it have on the village?
- Years of further development
- More noise, traffic and congestion
- Pressure on local health services
- Sewer system is already has capacity issues
- Higher crime
- Risk of accidents on Eyebury Road will increase.
But there must be benefits benefits for the village?
For the local shops it may mean more a few more customers, for parish it may mean more money via the precept or even slightly lower precept overall.
LP40 was in the Local Plan submission document.
|Policy LP40: Tanholt Farm, Eye
Prior to the approval of detailed proposals for the site at Tanholt Farm, Eye (Site LP39.8) an outline planning application comprising, amongst other matters, a comprehensive masterplan for the whole area should be submitted and approved by the council.
In developing the masterplan there should be a high level of engagement with appropriate stakeholders including the local community.
The masterplan, together with other material submitted with an outline planning application, should demonstrate achieving the following key principles:
With the exception of minor proposals of very limited consequence to the overall redevelopment of the entire site, the council will not approve any detailed planning proposals for any parts of the site until, and subsequently in accordance with, a comprehensive planning permission for the entire site has been achieved (including any agreed Planning Obligation to ensure specific elements of the wider scheme are guaranteed to be delivered).