News

Record levels of fly tipping recorded

Posted on by EyePadmin

Latest statistics for the year 2023/24 show Peterborough has the highest levels of flytipping ever recorded. The city remains in the top 25 in the country, and in sixth place outside London for incidents per 1000 people, and this is out of nearly 300 local authorities. Statistics published by Peterborough City Council showed that April 2024 was the worse month on record with 1085 incidents reported. The city is also the worse location for flytipping in the East of England, so the situation is pretty dire, it wasn’t always like this though. But let’s have a deeper dive into the stats.

From April 2023 to March 2024 the stats show there were 10,128 incidents recorded in Peterborough but only 102 fines specifically for fly tipping and six prosecutions, that is tiny in proportion to the size of the problem. There are some very useful charts on the Local Government website. The stats also show that the council spent nearly £110K cleaning up after flytippers, possibly much more. Remember it’s your council tax that is paying to clean up after these criminals.

Please note that this is just fly tips on local authority land, it does not generally include fly tips on private land, the large-scale incidents dealt with by the Environment Agency and those that go unreported, so in reality the figure will be much higher. Across England in the same time period there were over one million incidents recorded, with London seeing some of the worse levels of fly tipping in the UK.

Place Year Local Authority name Region Total Incidents Incidents per 1,000 people
1 2023-24 City of London London 2315 171.97
2 2023-24 Camden London 34786 157.47
3 2023-24 Hackney London 33464 127.10
4 2023-24 Westminster London 25531 120.71
5 2023-24 Nottingham East Midlands 30511 92.66
6 2023-24 Lewisham London 27599 92.39
7 2023-24 Hounslow London 27241 92.12
8 2023-24 Croydon London 35470 89.18
9 2023-24 Brent London 27023 78.44
10 2023-24 Boston East Midlands 5500 77.07
11 2023-24 Merton London 16116 74.88
12 2023-24 Southwark London 22912 72.62
13 2023-24 Hammersmith and Fulham London 11877 63.79
14 2023-24 Haringey London 16508 62.79
15 2023-24 Newham London 19629 54.14
16 2023-24 Newcastle-upon-Tyne North East 15874 50.88
17 2023-24 Redcar and Cleveland North East 6983 50.62
18 2023-24 Kensington and Chelsea London 7153 48.51
19 2023-24 Pendle North West 4646 47.88
20 2023-24 Harrow London 12609 47.86
21 2023-24 Peterborough East 10128 46.14
22 2023-24 Greenwich London 13516 45.96
23 2023-24 Ealing London 16828 44.83
24 2023-24 Luton East 10194 44.12
25 2023-24 Southampton South East 10948 42.75

Looking at the chart below you will see the number of flytips across Peterborough has doubled in 10 years, no wonder so many people are frustrated by the sheer amount we see on our streets. And the trend is still upwards. Add this to the increases in litter and graffiti you see why the country is starting to look like a society on the decline.

The light blue line shows the trend

Out of the three parishes in our ward Newborough has more of an acute problem with flytipping than Eye and Thorney but all are impacted. Virtually all of this flytipping comes from homes in the city of Peterborough, not from the villages themselves.

NFU Vice President Rachel Hallos said: ““The scale of waste crime is staggering, with nearly a fifth of all waste – an estimated 34 million tons – being handled illegally every year.”

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said that nearly two thirds of landowners and farmers have been impacted by flytipping. Regional Director Ann Maidment commented: “Fly-tipping is a crime that’s blighting rural communities, with incidents on private land going unrecorded on a mass scale.”

So why has it got so bad?

Here are some of the main reasons why it has gotten worse:

  1. Increased waste disposal costs: The rising cost of legitimate waste disposal has pushed some people to take the cheaper route by illegally dumping their waste, a bit more about that below. Fees for using council-run waste sites, especially for large or commercial waste, have increased over time. Some individuals and businesses may opt for fly-tipping as a way to avoid these costs.

  2. Lack of enforcement: Although fly-tipping is illegal, enforcement has been weak. Austerity meant local authorities took their eye off the ball, diverting money into other services and being reactive in regards fly tipping but not proactive. Additionally fines or penalties may not always be sufficient to deter offenders, especially when it is difficult to catch those responsible and courts see it as a low level crime so do not punish appropriately. It’s also expensive taking fly tippers to courts although councils can claim some of those costs back. In fact the according the the Countryside Alliance fly-tipping statistics for England for 2023-24, showed a 6% rise in dumping incidents but fixed penalty notices fell by 5%, and court fines also fell by 8%.

  3. Poor public awareness and lack of accountability: Some people may not realise the environmental and legal implications of fly-tipping. Others may feel that their actions won’t be noticed, especially if they dump waste in remote areas. Additionally, there’s a general lack of responsibility among certain sectors of society when it comes to proper waste disposal. Some probably just don’t care as long as the money is in their pocket.

  4. Increased urbanisation and population growth: The expansion of urban areas and population growth can lead to more waste being generated. As more people move into cities and towns, there may not be enough accessible or convenient waste management services to meet demand, or sites may not have the capacity to deal with that growth leading some individuals to dump waste illegally. And increase in rental properties has also been linked to the increases in fly tipping.

  5. Facebook groups are awash with waste removal advertisements. Always confirm their license to operate.

    The rise of online services and “man with a van”: Many people use informal services, like “man with a van” companies, to remove waste. While some of these services are licensed and legitimate businesses, there are many fly-by-night operators who undercut the legal operators for waste removal and then illegally dump it, leaving their clients unaware of the law-breaking. You’ve only got to look at the cities Market Facebook groups to see many companies advertising a waste removal service.

  6. Lack of proper disposal facilities with enough capacity to deal with growing cities: In more rural parts of the UK, there may be limited access to waste disposal facilities. This could make fly-tipping an attractive option for those living outside urban areas where regular waste collection services might be less available or harder to access. To save money cash strapped councils can make it more difficult to dispose of waste, not easier.

  7. Environmental changes and attitudes: There’s been a general decline in respect for the environment and local communities. Social attitudes around waste and environmental protection may not always encourage responsibility, and people might feel less connected to their surroundings, leading to a higher tolerance for illegal dumping.

  8. A lack of infrastructure: In some places, there simply aren’t enough facilities or services to handle waste properly, and people are left with few choices. This can include inadequate recycling services, not enough skips for large items, or limited access to appropriate waste disposal services.

So what happened?

In 2007 the Countryside Alliance was already warning that the already high levels of fly-tipping across the UK may reach “epidemic proportions” thanks to the ever increasing cost of landfill tax. Landfill tax itself was introduced in 1996 under the Conservative government of the time to encourage waste producers and the waste management industry to switch to more sustainable alternatives for disposing of material. A negative side affect of course has been the increase in flytipping as people either won’t pay the higher costs to get waste removed properly or pay an illegal carrier who does it cheap and flytips the waste. In 1996 when it was introduced the tax had a standard rate of £7 per ton, from April 2025 it will have a big increase to £126.15 ton, and it continues to increase year on year. You can find full details here. It does make you wonder the logic of such an increase at time when levels of flytipping are at an all time high.

Landfill tax cost by year (per ton)

 

What can be done?

Addressing the increases fly-tipping (and litter) in the UK requires a multi-faceted approach, including stricter enforcement, better public awareness campaigns, and improved waste management infrastructure. All that’s been lacking for many years. It’s a problem that involves not just individuals but also government bodies, businesses, and communities working together to find sustainable solutions. Like littering the problem has become so large it’s going to be difficult to put it ‘back in the bottle’ but doing nothing is not an option. What is needed is more investment and more campaigning including naming and shaming of those found guilty of fly tipping.

As individuals it’s important that we check any waste carrier has a license to remove our waste which you can do here: https://environment.data.gov.uk/public-register/view/search-waste-carriers-brokers Even builders need a license if they are transferring waste from your home during any work. More on the Eye Parish Council website. Flytipping can be reported via Fixmystreet. Additionally if you see or suspect or see someone flytipping you can report it via the same app.

Peterborough City Council has set up a task and finish group to look into the issue of fly tipping across the city. This isn’t the first time the council has done this and you can see the results of the previous group here. They have also increased the fine they can hand out to the maximum allowed by the government but still more needs to be done.

Independent Review Committee (IRC) on Debris is a group that has been setup by volunteers. The group aims is to work closely with Peterborough City Council by analysing data, identifying issues and subsequently proposing strategies and solutions.

Less reports and more actions as below please Peterborough City Council.

See out previous coverage of flytipping here.

Resources

Media

Any of the charts on this page are free for anyone to use in regards the impact of flytipping.

Eye ‘Green Wedge’ under threat!

Posted on by EyePadmin

The draft of the local plan review has been released. Three new areas in the parish have been included, a new 100 home estate to the north end of Eye Green adjacent to Grade II* Listed Northolm Farmhouse, a large commercial development (LP 62.31) in the Green Wedge and a smaller 10 home housing development where the chip shop formerly resided. This in addition to the 270+ homes already approved on Eyebury Road.

As part of the current Local Plan, a number areas across the city are designated ‘Green Wedges’ where planning permission will not be granted for any development that would reduce the degree of physical separation between settlements and yet officers at Peterborough City Council are already breaking that policy. Part of the Green Wedge which encompasses the Dogsthorpe Landfill Site already has planning permission for a 14MW photovoltaic solar array, with a battery energy storage system. It is a vitally important area that prevents Eye from just becoming a suburb of Peterborough. Already to the north west of the village is the 2000 home Norwood development and to the south in Fengate is the 50 acre Flagship Park industrial park.

The edge of the city/Parnwell is only around 760m or half a mile away as it is, if LP 62.31 is approved it will reduce it to just 400m or 0.2miles. And if that goes ahead it’s almost guaranteed the remaining space will be infilled in the future. Centuries of village life will be gone and we’ll be swallowed up by the expanding city.

If the council wants to create a “walkable, liveable city”, with a shift in travel behaviour towards more people walking and cycling as mentioned in this BBC article, they can start with upgrading the unsuitable cycleway/footpath along the A1139! The A1139 (pictured below) is already busy throughout most of the day, further development is only going to make it worse. The only footpath between the village and the city also needs upgrading to a proper segregated footpath and cycle path, despite the growth in the village and the increasing traffic along that road it hasn’t changed in years. Not only is the level of traffic and access to the village by vehicles an issue but you can often smell the petrol and diesel fumes as you walk along the footpath. Diesel cars, trucks and buses emit particularly high concentrations of fine soot and large numbers of very toxic substances coat these particles, with standing traffic making it much worse. There is a strong evidence of a link between traffic-related pollution and a worsening of lung conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD).

Eye has already been used by the City Council so it could reach it’s housing targets with a growth of 43% between 2001 and 2021. The highest in any rural area across the city. This has led to an oversubscribed primary school, pressures on the GP practice and roads, and a loss of green space and village character. Added to a lack of infrastructure improvements to cope with the growth it has only been detrimental to the village.

Eye resident Dale McKean has responded to the local plan. As Dale said in Cambridge News: “We’ve got this horrendous situation with the traffic coming down Eyebury Road to avoid the A1139, people trying to drop their kids off at the primary school, and there’s all this extra traffic trying to get down there.” Eyebury Road has become a rat run for vehicles looking to avoid the traffic jams on the A1139 and A47, especially during rush hour.

A few points in Dale’s response:

  • There should be no further growth added in the Local Plan until Eye Primary School is permanently extended to increase its cohort from 2 to 3 (90 pupils) for all years including for the capacity of the school facilities such as sports assembly areas , dinning, play grounds, school fields, staff parking, safe drop of areas and temporary parking slots for special needs/disabilities.
  • New infrastructure, including schools, health facilities and open space provision, will be planned and provided at the same time as the new homes.
  • There is no reference to any analysis of health provision and availability in each village.
  • In 2001 the population in the Parish of Eye Village was 3,779. By 2011 that had grown to 4,340, an increase of 561 (14%). By 2021 the population of Eye Village was 5,400 a further increase of 1,060 (28%).
  • In the last 22 years it has had no improvement to its key infrastructure and service.
  • Yes, there needs to be enough parking at least One parking space per room and plus visitor parking 25% extra.
  • Eye Village Green Wedge should be maintained to protect the village from encroachment from Peterborough City Housing and Employment sites.

You can also view Dale’s comments at the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee which was held Tuesday 18 March, 2025. Martin Chillcott was also there on behalf of Protect Rural Peterborough. He said ” The other aspect is in terms of the fact that the super fast growth that Peterborough has seen for the past 20 years has not served the people of Peterborough, well. We are bottom of the league in terms of health, we are bottom of the league in terms of real increased in household income, we are bottom of the league in aspects of education…” ED. We are near the top of the league for flytipping though!

A view to be lost forever if LP 62.31 this goes ahead.

 

Do you want Eye to end up like Dogsthorpe, the Orton’s or Werrington or do you want it to remain a village? You can have your say from the 12 April 2025 in the Local Plan Review consultation.

As they said on the former TV programme Yes minister… http://www.eyepeterborough.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/slicebyslice.mp3

Media
Related links

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

Posted on by EyePadmin

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.

C6

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.

C9

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.

C10

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.

C21

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.

C33

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

Posted on by EyePadmin

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: www.youtube.com/live/kpyb-wvKKW8 Continue reading “Eye Library and Youth centre petition presented to full council” →

Allison Homes present at Eye Parish Council meeting

Posted on by EyePadmin

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

Posted on by EyePadmin

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

Posted on by EyePadmin

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

Local resident shares his objections of the Tanholt Farm development

Posted on by EyePadmin

The 264 home for planning application the Tanholt Farm development went before planners on the 25 January 2022. Despite over 350 objections to the development including objections from Eye Parish Council, Ward Councillors and our MP due to its size and location, it was approved seven votes to three. Continue reading “Local resident shares his objections of the Tanholt Farm development” →

Tanholt Development – outline planning application v3

Posted on by EyePadmin

 

Planning for 284 homes on the 13 hectare Tanholt site to the east of Eyebury Road in the village has for the third time been put forward for public consultation. This is probably the largest single development put in for planning permission in the village’s history. The development has previously been covered extensively on this website previously so I won’t say a lot more except please do respond by Friday the 17 September 2021. Continue reading “Tanholt Development – outline planning application v3” →