Peterborough City Council is preparing to refuse two major planning applications for a high-profile development at the East of England Showground in Alwalton. The ambitious proposals, which would have delivered up to 1,500 homes, a primary school, a care village, a hotel, and leisure and community facilities, are now in jeopardy following a breakdown in negotiations between the two companies behind the project.
The applications, submitted in August 2023, are being promoted by AEPR Ltd, a subsidiary of AEPG, alongside the East of England Agricultural Society (EEAS), which owns the land. Land A proposed up to 650 homes, while Land B sought permission for up to 850 homes alongside commercial space, a care village, and a hotel.
A long and contested planning process
The applications have already been through a complex and highly public planning process. In October 2024, the council’s Planning and Environmental Protection Committee (PEPC) approved the larger site but refused the smaller one.
Officers cited “the loss of the showground and speedway track, together with a quantum of dwellings which cumulatively would significantly exceed the allocated 650 dwellings on the showground site…there are no other material considerations, including the NPPF ‘tilted balance’ that carry such weight as to outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan.”
Following a councillor call-in, the Appeals and Planning Review Committee (APRC) approved Land A in January 2025, overturning the earlier decision.
Officers stressed that both approvals were contingent on a single Section 106 legal agreement to ensure the development would be “brought forward as a single master planned development in a coordinated way, and that the necessary infrastructure needed to make it acceptable in planning terms would be delivered in a timely manner.”
Infrastructure dispute at the heart of the deadlock
The Section 106 agreement is central to the project. It guarantees that developers deliver infrastructure such as schools, roads, community facilities, and affordable housing.
Officers have warned that “the section 106 agreement required by the resolution to grant on each application has not been completed…[and] permission now falls to be refused in line with the previous resolutions, the section106 agreement being necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.”
While highways concerns have now been addressed, with “all of the outstanding highways issues…fully resolved to the satisfaction of the LHA,” the main obstacle is disagreement between AEPR and EEAS over the Heads of Terms (HOTs).
Officers report that “EEAS have proposed a number of amendments to the provisions within the section106 agreement which would deviate significantly from those which were included and assessed in the officers report presented to the PEPC and APRC, and on the basis of which the resolutions to grant were made.”
EEAS’s proposals include delaying delivery of leisure and community facilities, making themselves the sole signatory to the Section 106 agreement, and introducing a viability mechanism to reduce affordable housing contributions.
Council officers: changes would undermine planning balance
Council officers were unequivocal in their assessment. On the proposed phasing, they stated that “as a master planned mixed use development, the leisure and community facilities were significant in tipping the planning balance towards approval…development of both the residential element and the leisure/community element must proceed more or less in tandem to make the development acceptable in planning terms.”
Regarding the idea that EEAS should be the only signatory, officers warned that “whilst it is technically possible, it is not advisable, and our strong legal advice is that all parties with an interest in the land should sign.”
On their proposal to use a confirmatory deed for leased land, officers said that “government guidance is that this approach should only be used in exceptional circumstances…It is not considered that exceptional circumstances exist in this case.”
The report also rejected reductions in infrastructure contributions. “At no point has a viability assessment been submitted with the applications, to demonstrate that the full Section 106 obligations would make the development unviable…In fact the full 30% affordable housing was put forward by the applicants as a benefit of the proposal,” the officers wrote.
No room for further negotiation
The council issued a final position statement to the applicants giving them a clear choice: agree to the HOTs and secure a further extension of time to complete the Section 106 agreement, or face refusal.
AEPR confirmed their agreement, but EEAS requested more time, proposing “the inclusion of a viability mechanism…to permit up to 375 dwellings within the first phase…[and] a phasing plan that allows the Blue Land…to be delivered when the either the lease has been surrendered, or acceptable terms have been agreed.”
Officers responded that these proposals are “not material planning considerations and cannot be factored into the terms of the section 106 agreement.”
Given the impasse, officers are recommending refusal of both applications.
“The development would not provide the necessary infrastructure required by policy to make it acceptable in planning terms, due to failure to accept the fundamental terms of the draft section 106 agreement…there are no extenuating circumstances which justify a further extension of time,” the report states.
Community facilities at stake
The East of England Showground has long been a hub for agricultural shows, sporting events, and community gatherings. Residents have raised concerns about the loss of these facilities, questioning whether new housing and commercial development can adequately replace them.
Officers repeatedly stress that timely delivery of alternative infrastructure is essential to offset the impact of the redevelopment.
Final decision looms
The Planning and Environmental Protection Committee will meet on October 21, 2025, to make a final decision.
If the officers’ recommendations are followed, both applications will be refused, marking the latest chapter in a saga spanning nearly two years.
Officers emphasise that the refusal is not a rejection of housing in principle, but a matter of ensuring that developments provide the necessary infrastructure. “The development would not provide the necessary infrastructure to make it acceptable in planning terms, contrary to Local Plan Policy LP14 and Section 4 of the NPPF,” they wrote.
The outcome will have major implications for Peterborough, shaping not only the East of England Showground site but also the city’s approach to large-scale developments, community facilities, and affordable housing.
