On the 20th November 2015 the Second Church Estates Commissioner answered a written question about property development in Peterborough.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough): To ask the right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, for what reason the Church Commissioners have not released land for the construction of a primary school, in accordance with previous legal undertakings, at the Paston Reserve urban extension in Peterborough; and if she will make a statement.Mrs Caroline Spelman: The Church Commissioners are involved in the development of Paston Reserve in Peterborough. Within the development there is provision for a site and financial contributions towards the delivery of a primary school site as outlined within the agreed Section 106 legal agreement that accompanied the planning permission and that was varied by agreement with the Council in 2010. The Section 106 agreement provides that the primary school site must be delivered prior to any house occupation on the third phase of development on the site and also outlines the trigger points at which the financial contributions for the school will be provided. Continue reading “Church Commissioners Written Answer on property development in Peterborough”

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, back in 2013 the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee urged that social housing in rural areas should be excluded from the underoccupancy charge, because of the near impossibility of finding alternative accommodation in many rural areas, where it is simply is not available for people to downsize. Already people in rural areas have higher social and housing costs, and there is some evidence that the underoccupancy charge is pushing some families further into debt. Will the Minister tell the House whether Her Majesty’s Government would be willing to undertake a reconsideration of their policy and exclude social housing in rural areas from this measure? 



You must be logged in to post a comment.