Plans to convert Peterborough warehouse space into flats
A total of 11 on-site parking bays are proposed, along with three additional visitor bays, which the applicant claimed would eliminate any additional pressure on existing Crown Street parking.
'Sustainable homes'
Previous proposals from the applicant received pushback from Peterborough City Council planners, who said there was an "unjustified loss of employment use".But the fresh plans state that the applicant would provide a "comprehensive marketing assessment" demonstrating that the site was no longer viable for employment use."This includes evidence of an extended marketing period without successful interest and an assessment of alternative employment uses," the plans added.They also claimed to address design concerns and noted that the applicant would ensure the development integrated "sensitively" into the local streetscape.The design and access statement concluded: "Ultimately, the new proposal respects the existing, whilst enhancing the local architecture by providing new high-quality, safe and sustainable homes to the neighbourhood."Peterborough City council is yet to make a decision on the application.
Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
We want to sell our listed house — do we need an EPC?
Q. We want to sell our listed house. The estate agents say we may not need an energy performance certificate (EPC) but should get one anyway. Do we need an EPC for a listed house? A. EPCs record the energy efficiency of buildings, rated from A to G. It is a common misconception that they are not needed for listed properties. It is far more complicated than that. The basic requirements are set out in part 2 of the Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. Regulation 6 requires a valid EPC to be available whenever a building is to be sold. The maximum penalty for marketing or selling a property without a valid EPC is £5,000, although prosecutions are rare. • Read more expert advice on property, interiors and home improvement Under regulation 5, certain properties are exempt from these requirements, including 'buildings officially protected as part of a designated environment or because of their special architectural or historical merit'. Although this potentially exempts listed buildings and houses in conservation areas, they are only excluded if 'compliance with certain minimum energy performance requirements would unacceptably alter their character or appearance'. For example, government guidance notes that many typical EPC recommendations — such as double glazing, new doors and windows, external wall insulation and external boiler flues — would probably cause unacceptable changes in most historic buildings. This presents a problem in that listed building owners are unlikely to know whether they will need an EPC without first asking an EPC assessor to advise on what energy efficiency measures are needed. Owners may also need to consult with their listed buildings officer to anticipate queries from potential buyers about any advice set out in the EPC. In addition, in December 2024, the government launched a consultation about reforms to the regime, which include proposals to bring all listed buildings within the EPC net. It is probably best to commission an EPC before marketing a listed house, even if it turns out that a valid certificate is not required by legislation. Mark Loveday is a barrister with Tanfield Chambers. Email your questions to
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
I lost £97,000 to a scammer. Before you judge me, here's the unexpected - and tragic - reason I fell for it... and how it changed my life forever: SARAH GRACE
It was the dead of night when I made the devastating discovery. Combing frantically through the flurry of emails I'd received from a financial services company and trying to work out how I had got into such a mess, I suddenly realised the address was slightly different to the one on the website. An email to the legitimate firm that morning confirmed my worst fears; I had lost £97,000 to a gang masquerading as investment brokers.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
IAN WILLIAMS: Ministers blinded by Beijing's cash cannot see their dangerous folly
The warning from America is stark: selling Thames Water, Britain's biggest water and sewage business, to a Chinese company would be a 'national security threat' – or as Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, puts it, 'stupidity on stupidity'. That the Labour government cannot see the dangerous folly of handing China control of the capital's water supply – a necessity for 15 million people – beggar's belief. It is only four months since the Chinese owner of British Steel was accused of trying to sabotage the company's blast furnaces, potentially to undermine UK production and increase reliance on imports from China. There have been multiple warnings about the need for vigilance in the face of industrial scale Chinese cyber espionage as well as influence operations to undermine our democracy. The world is becoming more dangerous – to a large extent because of China's behaviour. Yet ministers seem unable or unwilling to see beyond the cash – seemingly oblivious to the risks that come with inviting China into sensitive corners of the economy. Ministers are reportedly preparing to take struggling Thames Water into temporary public ownership, with Hong Kong-based CK Infrastructure (CKI) a leading contender to then take it over. CKI already has investments in British firms, including UK Power Networks, Northumberland Water and Northern Gas Networks. It also has a 65 per cent stake in UK Rails, which leases rolling stock to Britain's railway companies. Surely this is reason for caution, especially as relations with China deteriorate and Beijing seeks to exert greater control over CKI's parent company, CK Hutchison Holdings (CKH). The US government has raised the alarm over CKH, which controls ports at either end of the Panama Canal, because Washington fears the firm could hand China control of the vital waterway. In March, CKH agreed to sell the ports to an American-led consortium, but the deal has effectively been vetoed by Beijing, which has threatened CKH's business interests in China unless it takes on a partner closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party. CKH is headquartered in Hong Kong, which for a long time was a relatively autonomous place for business, free from the heavy hand of Beijing. No more. Hong Kong is now darkly repressive – as the trial and pending prison sentence of 77-year-old pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai, a fierce critic of China, will surely attest. Burner phones and throw-away laptops are commonplace for visiting foreign executives, fearing surveillance. Companies based in the former British colony cannot escape laws that oblige all Chinese firms do the Party's bidding on demand when it comes to issues of 'national security' – an infinitely elastic concept in China. As Beijing deepens its partnership with Russia, underwriting the Ukraine war, and grows increasingly hostile to the West, its 'Trojan horse' investments look dangerous and foolhardy. Selling Thames Water will be the first big test of the Labour government's 'China audit', which was supposed to forge a more coherent policy with this rising power. That followed disastrous decisions to invite firms linked to Beijing into sensitive industries, such as nuclear power and advanced telecoms. They were reversed only after political outcry – and American pressure. Sir Keir Starmer now claims to be trying to balance security concerns against economic opportunities. To sell Thames Water to a Chinese company would show how little he has learned.
