Peterborough MP leads Eye Green planning opposal

Peterborough City Council's Planning and Environmental Protection committee meeting
Peterborough City Council's Planning and Environmental Protection committee meeting
Have your say

Peterborough’s MP and residents in Eye Green were able to celebrate after a planning application for the area was turned down.

Stewart Jackson spoke out against plans for a residential development of up to 55 dwellings at Guilsborough Road.

Mr Jackson labelled as greed the decision by applicant O&H Properties and agent David Lock Associates to upgrade their application from the original total of 35 properties which had been agreed upon in the Development Plan.

The plans had been recommended for approval by the planning inspectorate.

The decision to refuse the proposal was made at Peterborough City Council’s Planning and Environmental Protection Committee at Town Hall on October 7.

Mr Jackson was joined in his opposition to the plans by former Councillor Dale McKean who used to represent the Eye Ward.

Mr McKean said at a presentation evening to discuss the proposal, of the 700 residents in the building only three indicated their approval.

Concerns over a buffer zone to the A47, a shortage of primary places due to new residents coming to the area, and cutting into the adjacent County Wildlife Site (CWS), were all listed as reasons why the application should be rejected.

Speaking in favour of the proposal were Gail Revill, of David Lock Associates, and Philippa Cheetham of O&H Properties Ltd who have an office in Hampton.

Ms Revill said: “We have put a great deal of effort in looking at this scheme. This is a logical development which reflects similar housing in the immediate vicinity.

“I do not think we are doing anything councillors have not already approved.”

Discussing the proposal, several councillors highlighted concerns for the CWS.

Cllr Nigel North said: “People who really care about this area seem to object to this.”

Cllr Lucia Serluca added: “For me it’s quite simple. Thirty five properties is ok for amenities, but 55 will have an impact in particular for school places.”

Speaking after the application was refused, Mr Jackson said the developers were pushing their luck trying to increase the number of properties they were looking to build.

“I think they did not take into consideration people’s concerns about traffic and parking,” he said.