Councillors and a packed public gallery listed in silence today as Ashley Butterfield, the chief executive of AEPG, made an impassioned speech of surrender after witnessing the collapse of his company’s efforts to bring a multimillion housing development to the East of England Showground site.
The scheme, jointly promoted by the landowner, the East of England Agricultural Society, fell apart after agreement failed to be reached with Peterborough City Council over the terms of a S106 agreement, the document that spells out community benefits such as the level of affordable housing.
Mr Butterfield addressed the council’s planning and environmental protection committee which refused both applications that had included up to 1,500 new homes, a care village, leisure facilities, a hotel, a primary school, and associated infrastructure.
AEPG and the agricultural society were both required to sign the S106, but the latter refused, leading to the impasse and today’s refusal.
Mr Butterfield told the committee his scheme had received widespread support “and from the outset AEPG made a clear commitment to deliver a development to make real and lasting difference; 30 pc affordable homes, new schools, health and wellbeing facilities and open spaces for everyone to enjoy.
“It was firmly committed to by AEPG. We acted on this mandate given to us, tried and tested legally robust with the trustees of the society in 2021.
“And the society worked happily and willingly alongside us in full support of that vision for community benefit across Peterborough.”
He continued: “However more recently that position has changed. We have been told this is advice coming directly from the Charity Commission, yet no such advice from Charity Commissioners has been shown publicly or transparently albeit we have requested it.
“For clarity and to help everyone understand, how it could possibly outweigh the enormous financial and social and community brings not only for Peterborough but for the charity itself.”
He said: “AEPG has remained ready and willing to sign the S106 on the council’s approved terms. We stand and always stand by our promises.
“So, while I regret deeply we have reached this point, I would like to thank the council and the community for their professionalism and patience for what this development could have achieved.”
Mr Butterfield added: “We as AEPG remain committed to Peterborough and to continue our work here however that may take shape, and I sincerely hope in time every organisation charity or anybody at all with land and everyone with legacy and land recognises true value lies not only in money and financial but in in the lives of communities improved what we could have built together.”
Stephen Hemmings of Lambert Smith Hampton, spoke on behalf of the East of England Agricultural Society, freeholder of showground site and one of joint applicants.
He explained that continued losses arising from events at the site culminated in the society making the difficult decision to end major events.
The society entered into an agreement with AEPG – “standard practice” – but said that after an initial extension the agreement expired earlier this year since when the society has been working with council to attempt to reach a positive outcome.
Tuesday 21 October 2025. Picture by Terry Harris.
He said a draft section S106 was only received by the society on August 1 at which time there were gaps and financial gaps.
Mr Hemmings said although a joint applicant, the society had not been party to any of the discussions heads of term re the S106 and there were unsuccessful attempts to effect change.
He said any landowner was entitled to secure best possible outcome of its assets “and should not be pressured into a deal that does not deliver this”. The society was both a landowner and charity and had additional requirements to achieve best value for disposal.
Mr Hemmings spoke of the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5m new homes during the lifetime of this Parliament but added that rising construction costs and rising uncertainty had led to a reduction in the number of housing starts. Many councils, he pointed out, were already looking at reductions to the level of affordable housing and other contributions which new developments might offer.
“The society concluded it cannot sign the current agreement because of challenging market conditions,” he said. “Before granting planning permission the society also require commercial agreement with AEPG – the terms of which are not in the society’s best interests as advised by independent third party advisers.”
Mr Hemmings said the society remains committed to the development of the showground site and promised it could still deliver much needed housing, noting that without it the city council’s 5 year housing land supply could be hit.
He hinted at reduced levels of affordable housing to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome and “would welcome” an opportunity to discuss these with the council.
Peterborough City Council officers had recommended refusing the two major planning applications to redevelop the East of England Showground.
Picture by Terry Harris.
The proposals, submitted by AEPR Ltd and the East of England Agricultural Society (EEAS), sought outline permission for up to 1,500 homes, a care village, leisure facilities, a hotel, and a primary school, requiring demolition of most existing buildings.
The showground has been a historic community hub, hosting the East of England Show, concerts, exhibitions, and the Peterborough Panthers speedway team until its closure in 2023.
“The East of England Agricultural Society has been at the forefront of championing agriculture and livestock for over three centuries,” says the website of the East of England Agricultural Society. ” With a rich history that dates back to 1797, the society was merged in 1970 to become the East of England Agricultural Society that we know today.”
The refusal recommendation followed the breakdown of a Section 106 legal agreement intended to secure infrastructure, affordable housing, and community facilities, with EEAS requesting changes that officers deemed significant and unjustified.
Officers concluded the revised proposals would fail to deliver essential infrastructure, contravening local planning policies, leaving councillors to balance housing needs with preserving community heritage and services.
