Horsey Bridge: Complete timeline of controversial plan to build industrial park cited by council defectors

An application to build a business park in Peterborough has proven deeply controversial, with three of the four Conservative councillors who resigned from their party’s group on Peterborough City Council (PCC) after May’s local elections citing their opposition to it among their reasons.

The business park at Horsey Bridge, or Horsey Toll as it’s sometimes called, in Stanground, would have been made up of around 20 buildings, including offices and buildings for storage and distribution.

But it received more than 200 public objections and was rejected by PCC’s planning committee.

This wasn’t the end of the story though, as a group of councillors asked that the decision be looked at again by “calling in” the decision.

They then withdrew this request, but not before accusations that the group – all Conservatives – shouldn’t have submitted it in the first place.

Then there was the Conservatives group’s spate of resignations.

PCC’s planning team receives hundreds of planning applications every year, ranging from the very small to the very large.

So why has this one specifically proven so contentious and how will the saga end?

Here’s a timeline of everything that’s happened so far, from the application’s submission in 2021 to the present day.

The complete timeline

28 May 2021

PCC’s planning team acknowledges that it’s received a planning application from Barnack Estates UK Ltd to build an industrial park on agricultural land off Whittlesey Road in Stanground. The developer submits several supporting documents such as a design and access statement which says that the “existing access to the site from the junction with Milk and Water Drove will be closed and a new access provided further east along the A605”. The planning application is an outline application at this stage, meaning that it’s requesting permission to develop the land in principle: specifics of the designs of any buildings on the site are as of yet not included.

6 July 2021 onwards

After the application is submitted, hundreds of people leave comments on the planning application – which can be found on PCC’s website – with the vast majority objecting. Concerns include the possibility of increased traffic, flood risks, noise and disturbance to residents, loss of trees and wildlife, possible effects on archeology and building on a greenfield site when brownfield sites are available. Among the objectors is Cllr Brian Rush (Peterborough First, Stanground South), at the time a Conservative councillor, citing similar concerns. Fenland District Council (FDC) also objects to the plans, saying that it would erode the boundary between Peterborough and Whittlesey. PCC’s Tree Officer objects on “landscape grounds”, while concerns are also raised by Historic England and PCC’s Archeologist that the development could potentially harm the area’s heritage.

20 August 2021 onwards

While public objections and consultee comments continue to be submitted, the applicants submit a host of new documents. The first is a letter from the developer’s agent, addressing Cllr Rush’s concerns point by point. A flood risk assessment, hydrology report and archeological assessment are among the documents that follow. Barnack Estates spend more than £100,000 to investigate the area’s archaeology to allay concerns. A new access point is also proposed, on the western side of the site rather than the east.

21 March 2023

After significant interest from the public, the application goes to PCC’s planning committee. This usually happens when an application is for a particularly large settlement or is contentious for some reason; many smaller applications are decided internally by PCC’s planning team. That in-house planning team recommends that the councillors who make up the planning committee approve the application. But they vote, six to two (plus one abstention), to reject the application. One of the main reasons, which was also raised by Cllr Rush, FDC and several members of the public, was that the development would contravene Peterborough’s Local Plan (LP) – a document which sets out an area’s planning policies. The LP doesn’t identify the Horsey Bridge area as an area for development, but supporters of the plan point out that almost all the areas identified for business parks and similar developments are already taken.

30 March 2023

Three councillors who sit on the planning committee ‘call in’ the committee’s decision to reject the application. Cllrs Ishfaq Hussain (Conservatives, Dogsthorpe), Cllr Scott Warren (Conservatives, Bretton) and Cllr Lindsay Sharp (Conservatives, Hampton Vale) submit the call-in, which essentially means that the application could be looked at again. They say their call-in notice that the committee’s reasons for rejecting the application were not supported by evidence. Chair of the planning committee Cllr Chris Harper (Peterborough First, Stanground South) says that the call-in “disrespects the committee’s debate and the vote”. PCC says that another meeting on the issue will be held after the local elections on 4 May.

1 April 2023

PCC begins a scheduled review of its LP. The need for new employment land (on which business parks are built) was a “key driver” for the review according to PCC’s planning director Jim Newton.

4 May 2023

PCC’s Conservative group strengthens its control at the local council elections, but fails to secure a majority. After the elections, it has 30 out of 60 council seats – just one off.

19 May 2023

Three councillors resign from PCC’s Conservative group and instead join Peterborough First, a group of independents led by Cllr Harper. Cllr Rush is one of the three defectors alongside Cllr Ray Bisby (Peterborough First, Stanground South) and Cllr Peter Hiller (Peterborough First, Glinton and Castor). Cllrs Rush and Bisby both mention the Horsey Bridge application among their reasons for resigning. Cllr Rush said that he had been thinking about his decision since March, “when the Horsey Bridge planning application, which was refused at committee, was called in by three Conservative councillors”. Cllr Bisby said, on the topic of Horsey Bridge, that: "I think, in the party, I'll be asked to vote for something that I don't believe in” and that he resigned before that could happen.

21 May 2023

Cllr Gavin Elsey (Peterborough First, Wittering) becomes the fourth Conservative to defect to Peterborough First. Speaking to BBC Radio Cambridgeshire, he mentions Horsey Bridge among his reasons for resigning but – like all three councillors before him – he says this is only one of several.

22 May 2023

Council leader Cllr Wayne Fitzgerald (Conservatives, West) addresses the resignations from his party publicly for the first time. He reveals to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that Cllrs Hussain, Warren and Sharp have withdrawn their call-in, adding that they submitted it because they “didn’t feel the applicant got a fair hearing”. He also calls suggestions of bribery “completely ridiculous and quite frankly hurtful to those members involved”. This refers to speculation that donations to the Conservative Party from Rob Facer – chairman of Barnack Estates – were connected to the application. Mr Facer is also president of the Peterborough Conservative Association.

23 May 2023

Mr Facer vows that he “will not give up” on his company’s plans to build a development at Horsey Bridge. He also says that, “despite the claims of some, there has not been any impropriety regarding this application.” Mr Facer reveals that his company had sought legal advice and is considering several paths forward. Among these are submitting a new planning application, promoting the site as a development option through the new Local Plan review or appealing to the Secretary of State against the council’s decision.

What next?

PCC will either issue a refusal notice to Barnack Estates or it could return the issue back to its planning committee. It has also taken legal advice and believes that it’s likely Barnack Estates will appeal regardless. It could be costly for the council if the developers win the appeal, Cllr Fitzgerald has warned, and could also mean the development goes ahead. But the planning team will have to consent to the development’s specific design before building work could begin even if this happens. Whatever happens next, it’s likely this saga will continue for some time.