Comments for applications validated in the weeks of 8/22-12/22
22/00764/F | 20 Waring Road Norwich NR5 8RL | Construction of 1 No. 4 bed dwelling
We object to this proposal. There is insufficient space for another dwelling on this site, and the planned extra dwelling practically fills the side garden space so there is no room for parking for what is, in effect, a 5-bedroom house.
The floor plan appears to be designed in all but name as a HMO - the 'storeroom' and adjacent bathroom on the ground floor are obviously intended as another en-suie bedroom; also the small kitchen is not appropriate for family function.
The staircase goes across the only large window in the plan, and there's something called the 'garden access' on the RHS of the front elevation which doesn't make sense.
22/00762/F | Land And Buildings Including 70 - 72 Sussex Street & Land North Side Of 148 Oak Street Norwich NR3 3DE | Demolition of existing structures and construction of 34 low energy cohousing dwellings
This is a bold and imaginative scheme and we support the proposals.
A lot of thought and co-planning have gone into this scheme, and its ethos is excellent. However, we feel the Sussex Street block is too high at four storeys, and not compatible with its surroundings - Three storeys is acceptable, as in Sussex Street, or 2 ½ storey terrace on Chatham Street ideal. The previous extant plan looks more appropriate in height, although we understand it may be viability which is pushing the scheme up to the height proposed.
22/00841/F; 22/00842/L |The Castle 1 Spitalfields Norwich NR1 4EY | Demolition of ground floor lean to extension to a Grade 2 Listed Building and replacement ground floor extension for additional pub/restaurant accommodation and minor landscape alterations
[Apologies, we see this has already been approved, however we would like to put our support on record]
We support this application. This is a precious listed Georgian pub, however as long as the original building is left unspoilt, we are supportive of the extension proposals and the imaginative architecture which will greatly enhance it. The Design & Access Statement has been well prepared.
Comments for applications validated in the weeks of 18.07 to 22.08.22
22/00933/O | Land West Of Eastgate House 122 Thorpe Road Norwich | Outline application including matters of access, layout and scale for the erection of 19 No. dwellings contained within 3 and 5 storey building, 6 No. parking spaces and associated external amenity spaces
We support the proposals, which although squeezed rather tightly between Eastgate House and Graphic House, are of reasonable design and well laid out.
22/00937/F | Land To The West Of Crome Road Norwich | Erection of 8no. dwellings and associated works
We support this application. The 8 dwellings in 2 terraces are very good-looking and well-planned. There should be no problem amending the landscaping to meet any objections.
22/01000/F | Norfolk And Suffolk Terrace University Of East Anglia Earlham Road Norwich NR4 7TJ | Refurbishment and alterations to Norfolk Towers A, B, C, D, E and F and Suffolk Towers A, B and D
We support the proposals. There is a good quality of documentation, with well thought through, sensitive refurbishments. It appears that the Ziggurats will retain as much as possible of the original fabric, fixtures and fittings - repaired rather than replaced, with upgrade of Fire Precautions and improvement of bathrooms. All expensive but necessary to maintain its grade 2* listing.
22/01010/F | 2 Langton Close Norwich NR5 8RU | Two storey dwelling
The proposals are well designed, and there is sufficient space on the plot. We support the application.
Comments for applications validated in the weeks of 18.07 to 22.08.22
22/00933/O | Land West Of Eastgate House 122 Thorpe Road Norwich | Outline application including matters of access, layout and scale for the erection of 19 No. dwellings contained within 3 and 5 storey building, 6 No. parking spaces and associated external amenity spaces
We support the proposals, which although squeezed rather tightly between Eastgate House and Graphic House, are of reasonable design and well laid out.
22/00937/F | Land To The West Of Crome Road Norwich | Erection of 8no. dwellings and associated works
We support this application. The 8 dwellings in 2 terraces are very good-looking and well-planned. There should be no problem amending the landscaping to meet any objections.
22/01000/F | Norfolk And Suffolk Terrace University Of East Anglia Earlham Road Norwich NR4 7TJ | Refurbishment and alterations to Norfolk Towers A, B, C, D, E and F and Suffolk Towers A, B and D
We support the proposals. There is a good quality of documentation, with well thought through, sensitive refurbishments. It appears that the Ziggurats will retain as much as possible of the original fabric, fixtures and fittings - repaired rather than replaced, with upgrade of Fire Precautions and improvement of bathrooms. All expensive but necessary to maintain its grade 2* listing.
22/01010/F | 2 Langton Close Norwich NR5 8RU | Two storey dwelling
The proposals are well designed, and there is sufficient space on the plot. We support the application.
Land At Mousehold Lane Norwich
22/00610/F
09.05.22
Description: Erection of a freestanding restaurant with drive-thru facility, car parking, landscaping and associated works, including Customer Order Displays (COD) and Play Frame (Class E/Sui Generis)
Comments: We have no objections in principle - this looks to be a standard MacDonald's drive-through and restaurant, carefully screened to cause no offence, conveniently located on the ring road.
Our only concern is to the large area of parking exposed on the street frontage. It would provide a more enclosed and consistent frontage if the building could be located there, with parking principally at the rear.
4 Guildhall Hill Norwich
22/00456/L
11.04.22
Description: Alterations to facilitate change of use of existing restaurant and offices to additional educational space for Jane Austen College, including railings and entrance gate to the front of the building
Comments: Generally we welcome the proposals which are excellent. We are however concerned about the enclosure of the front 'yard' of 1-3 Guildhall Hill. If the building is to be used for sixth-form teaching, there should be no reason to shut off or obscure the facade of the old library – they could share bicycle storage with Sir Isaac Newton College up the road. As well as making this area inaccessible to the public, the building’s façade will be obscured by metal railings.
Richmond House 244 Queens Road & 1A Bracondale Norwich
22/00389/F
28.03.22
Description: Conversion of existing commercial property (Class E) into 4No. flats (Class C3) with external alterations and new brickwork wall to boundary
Comments: This proposal is for residential use of the former public house and other properties, and we have no objection in principle. The main interest is in the Scheduled Ancient Monument, which is the remains of the City Wall attached, which will of course need careful protection.
New fenestration should be in keeping with the original Victorian building.
Car Park And Premises Between 25 And 27 St Leonards Road Norwich
22/00363/F
21.03.22
Description: Erection of 4 No. Dwellings
Comments: St Leonards Road – the site already has permission for 4 terraced dwellings therefore we have no objection to the principle of the development and consider the design proposals to be satisfactory.
This site was originally part of ‘The Nest’ when Norwich City FC used the ground and we would suggest that this could be commemorated in some way, perhaps by a plaque or artwork, probably on the east end of the site.
We are concerned about the additional parking proposed in front of the houses; we understand the road is to be widened, but at present it is double yellow lines, and is quite restricted with the junction with Ella Road more or less directly opposite.
Former Eastern Electricity Board Site Duke Street Norwich
22/00243/F
Description: Comprehensive redevelopment of the former Eastern Electricity Board site, Duke Street, Norwich, comprising the demolition of existing buildings, erection of new buildings to provide purpose-built student accommodation (Sui Generis) and co-living accommodation (Sui Generis), retention and change of use of the Boardman Buildings to provide co-living accommodation, associated vehicular and pedestrian access improvements, parking and landscaping works, electrical substation, new public riverside walk providing access to a new cafe (Class E) and gymnasium (Class E)
Comments: This is a huge site and one which has been vacant for years. Some years ago we considered plans by the Target Follow Group which came to nothing. We would therefore very much like to see this site developed in principle, however we feel the massing of these proposals - which is essentially a couple of large solid blocks, with little variation - provides an overpowering presence. It steps down in areas, but needs to do more.
We are particularly concerned by the elevation shown facing onto the river frontage. This is an 8 storey monolithic block structure with very little variation or interest. Previous schemes contained more variety in uses and in broad visual outline of the development. We had previously accepted some element of 8 storey, but this was a feature building at one corner of the site – not virtually the whole frontage. The design seems to have regressed markedly from previous schemes and now has very few redeeming features.
Another concern is the overshadowing effect on the development (nearing completion) on the opposite bank of the Wensum and especially the Riverside Walk there. Also the number of tiny cramped apartments – justified as ‘student living’ – does not provide the variety and scope for creating a proper community on this site, which it will need if the community elements (café and gym) are to be successful. To devote the whole of this site to student flats seems likely to create a desert during the vacation season unless there is some mechanism for allocating short-term lets for conferences etc. during the summer.
We have asked the architects, Day Architectural Limited and their agents Bidwells, if they could present their proposals to us, so we will be writing again in more detail if/when that can be arranged.
Land Off Argyle Street Norwich
22/00273/F
Description: Construction of 14 No. dwellings and associated works
Comments: We are pleased to see NCC building new affordable homes here after the historic squatting problems of the late 70s. However we feel the designs are rather bland and unimaginative.
The private gardens are rather small and won't have a good sense of enclosure, and there is basically nowhere to park bikes.
10 - 14 Ber Street Norwich
22/00272/F and 22/00274/L
28.02.22
Description: Redevelopment of the site to provide 9 dwellings with associated works, including demolition of 10 Ber Street and re-instatement of any exposed parts of 8 Ber Street with lime render following construction
Comments: We support the principle of this development which will tidy up the streetscape on this bit of Ber Street.
The Ber Street houses should not have garages - there is not really enough room for them, and this is so close to the city centre they are perfect location for car-free development, and the space would be better taken up by making the houses slightly larger (an extra bedroom, perhaps) and garden. The cars are unlikely to to be parked neatly in their garages, causing neighbour disputes and an unattractive car dominated appearance.
We think the Ber Street elevation should be looked at again, the heavy brick and the proportions of the archway do not work.
The Valley Heathside Road Norwich
22/00127/F
14.02.22
Description: Subdivision of site and erection of 1no. two storey dwelling with detached garage
Comments: Heathside Road is a special conservation pocket of Norwich, and this proposal will fit in unobtrusively. It may squash The Valley rather, but generally this looks well-sited, quite a good contemporary house with plenty of natural light.
We like the design and think it suits the site and surroundings well so would support this application.
Friends Meeting House Upper Goat Lane Norwich
21/00866/F and 21/00867/L
Description: Demolition of modern porch extension, internal alterations, construction of new passenger lift and entrance extension
Comments: We support this scheme which pays careful attention to detail & sensitivity in dealing with such an important listed building. The excellent modifications will make the FMH more accessible and user-friendly.
Friar Lodge 1 Tuckswood Lane Norwich
21/00874/F
Description: New dwelling at first floor above Friar Lodge
Comments: Over-development of a restricted plot resulting in a poor quality design on a low quality existing building, with insufficient amenity space. We object to this application; although impact on the street-scene will be low, it will have a detrimental effect to the neighbouring properties.
World Of Beds Curtis House Curtis Road Norwich
21/00893/O
Description: Outline application including matters of access and layout for demolition of existing buildings and re-development of the site with 7 houses (mix of 2 & 3 bed)
Comments: The reduction in the number of units has resulted in an improved lower density scheme, and we have no objections.
Note: No comments on revised site plan 26.08.21
Fieldgate Town Close Road Norwich
21/00646/F
10.05.21
Description: Demolition of bungalow and construction of dwelling with associated works
Comments: This scheme is greatly improved upon previous proposals for this site by the omission of the free-standing garage to the front of the property, which, falling ahead of the predominant building line, encroached on the character of the conservation area. The relation of the building in this proposal in terms of size and massing to the nearby listed buildings is improved upon earlier versions.
The design is a departure from the prevailing character of this part of the conservation area. We do not object to this, provided that the prevailing character of conservation area can be fully appreciated and is not unduly disrupted. We feel that the view of 13 Town Close Road will be harmed by the presence of this development as a backdrop when viewed from the entrance to this property, but such harm is less than substantial.
We do not feel that the context of any other listed building is affected by this development, and that the proposal does not generally harm the conservation area.
5 Guildhall Hill Norwich
21/00494/F
05.04.21
Description: Conversion and change of use of existing building, demolition of existing retail (E) unit and extension to provide a new retail (E) unit, a reconfigured retail unit and a hotel (C1) with restaurant and ancillary accommodation and new flexible space for commercial, business and service and/or hot food takeaway (E and or sui generis)
Comments: We received an excellent presentation from the applicants, and are fully supportive of these proposals. The general approach is very good and seems to cover all the heritage aspects. The design blends in well with the streetscape, and we particularly like the proposed glazed bricks with their reference to the Royal Arcade. There is certainly a need for a quality hotel in Norwich city centre, and this one appears to have good accommodation for families as well as couples/singles. The idea of integrating coffee shops and small businesses into the ground floor will add to the variety of retail outlets and atmosphere of the Lanes.
We have no objection to five storeys in this location – indeed that is the height of the existing block. Some of the rear-facing rooms on the upper floors are rather tight and have only very small windows looking onto the roof of the delivery yard, but this is probably inevitable in such a city centre location.
We are pleased to see the maple is being carefully conserved, however the delivery bay off Pottergate has always been a problem and lorries have great difficulty, especially if there are (illegally) parked cars in that area. In that respect the proposal is nothing new, as long as it ensures that parking and deliveries for the proposed hotel are not adding to those problems. In fact the size of delivery vehicles for Tesco is limited already by the tortuous approach via Cow Hill/Pottergate and Exchange Street/ Pottergate junctions.
We understand that the inner courtyard, which is not visible from the street, is being retained and enhanced with planting, and we look forward to seeing landscaping proposals for this.
1 Ferry Road Norwich
21/00428/F
Description: Extensions and external alterations to create additional residential and commercial floor space, including one additional storey comprised of two residential apartments
Comments: We are pleased to see the building being repaired and reused, and consider that the extension is well-designed. The DAS is also really well presented and very clear. We therefore offer our full support for these proposals.
66 Constitution Hill Norwich
21/00431/F
22.03.21
Description: Sub-division of garden with demolition of existing rear garage and construction of dwelling. Alterations to access at front of dwelling to create off road parking
Comments: This is a large 3-bed house, and our concern is more about the relationship with the end terrace 5/7 Sewell Road, rather than with the existing bungalow. Sewell Road is an attractive row of terraces, particularly the first one, and the design of the new house has made no attempt to harmonise with these, and in fact visually conflicts. The render and brick references from the existing bungalow do not suit the new design and exacerbate its poor proportions. A much simpler design without the two gables would fit in much better. There is also very restricted amenity space for the new house. Neither house will have much garden once the front garden is practically halved to create parking spaces.
Earlham Court Heigham Grove
21/00212/F
Description: Two storey upward extension to create 8 new flats
Comments: Although the tower block to the south gives some precedent for a tall building, however an additional two storeys this close to Earlham Road streetscape creates a massive block which is overwhelming & out of context. Its visual impact is detrimental to the whole surrounding area and would be completely overpowering to neighbouring development. There is a lack of any additional amenity space.
The documentation submitted is poor and gives no indication of context which is particularly important since the proposal will dominate everything around it.
We therefore strongly object to these proposals.
Blueberry Pub 20 Cowgate Norwich
21/00182/F
Description: Demolition of existing building and construction of 3.5 and 4 storey building to provide 23 no. one bedroom flats with associated works
Comments: Whereas the height is probably appropriate for this city centre site, the design is unimaginative. The lack of variety of form and articulation makes it look particularly massive. The change from the mansard roof round the corner to the full height block is of poor proportion. There is no local context - why not reference the attractive historic elevations in the DAS with their top floor weavers’ windows and variety of fenestration.
We consider the development principle is appropriate for the site, however we strongly object to this application in terms of design quality.
Revised submission:
It was stated in correspondence from the applicant that the Norwich Society 'approves of the height specifically'. Our wording actually said ‘the height is probably appropriate’ which is rather different.
We consider that this is certainly an improvement on the previous scheme. However we are unclear why they don't have the ground floor flats accessible directly from the street, rather than entered from the rear. This would make them more in keeping with other properties on these streets, and may eliminate the ground floor internal corridor; this would give extra space to the flats and less of a bottleneck in a fire escape situation.
In summary we do not oppose the scheme and this represents an improvement, but we still feel there is scope for improvement in design quality.
81 Park Lane Norwich
21/00333/F
01.03.21
Description: Demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey dwelling
Comments: A member of our Committee visited the site and considers that far too much is being crammed on a small infill site which is inappropriate for a separate unit - primarily by the restraints imposed by the windows of the existing building. A simple extension of the existing unit could be acceptable in principle but the design sits awkwardly on this site, and leaves no space at all for residents at no. 81.
We have had separate representation about the intended demolition of the original red brick wall which borders the approach into Maida Vale, as the front wall of new house would sit on the street frontage.
We therefore object to this application.
63 Winter Road Norwich
21/00096/F
Description: Front porch
Comments: We are rarely moved to comment on small porch applications, however in this instance we have to strongly object as this is an appalling proposal which completely destroys the symmetry and appearance of the existing terrace frontage, as well as being unresolved in construction terms due to the awkward junction between the porch roof and the existing front bay.
46 Earlham Green Lane Norwich
21/00250/F
15.02.21
Description: Change of use from C3 to Sue Generis (7 bedroom HMO) with garage conversion, extension to garage conversion and extension link from main house to garage conversion
Comments: This proposal is shocking in its extent, taking over a wide area adjoining the neighbour’s boundary. The impact on neighbours would be our main concern, but the neighbouring houses may already have been converted in this way. It is over-development of the site but this is probably an instance where the horse has already bolted.
We object to these proposals in principle.
10 To 12 London Street Norwich
21/00007/F
08.02.21
Description: Demolition to rear, erection of rear and upward extensions, conversion to 16 No. apartments and retention of 3 No. retail units
Comments: The Jack Wills Site – 10-12 London Street, NR2 1LH
This is an important site with a building designed by Edward Boardman. This seems an appropriate conversion, which retains the main retail frontage – very important at this key location – although the creation of apartments in this central retail area will require careful attention to issues such as access, parking and delivery arrangements etc.
We are supportive of the extension in principle. The cranking along the north elevation will create some interest to the elevation and echo the light and shadows created by the windows on lower levels. We also like the reference made to the existing fenestration at the east end. However the west end cuts back rather abruptly to form the roof terrace as opposed to the historic upper storey which followed the building line around.
100 Magdalen Street Norwich
21/01655/F
06.06.22
Description: Demolition of 2.5 storey building and construction of 4 storey building with commercial space (Class E) at basement and ground floor level and 13 No. residential apartments on the upper floors (Class C3)
Comments: This is attached to other buildings and cannot be completed until those are demolished. It also needs to be reviewed in the context of the Anglia Square scheme, which is still of course under consideration.
The scheme itself is acceptable, with references to the surrounding listed building styles, though perhaps the height (four storeys) will look out of scale with the much taller adjacent Anglia Square blocks.
49 Sotherton Road Norwich
21/00081/F
25.01.21
Description: Sub-division of plot and construction of 2 no. dwellings
Comments: The Committee was of a single mind for this application, that we object strongly to this proposal. It goes totally contrary to the layout of this whole estate, which gives good space around the dwellings especially at the junctions with the side cul-de-sacs. This scheme would impose two new dwellings onto this communal green space and give precedence for similar schemes to destroy the character of the area. Every end-of-terrace in Sotherton Road has a similar large garden, and a precedent set here could mean doubling the number of houses in the road.
Curtis House Curtis Road Norwich
21/00040/O
04.01.21
Description: Outline application including matters of access and layout for demolition of existing buildings and re-development of the site with 9 houses (mix of 2 & 3 bed)
Comments: The site is in an awkward location, on the edge of an industrial estate and with very limited access off the Ring Road. We agree the site would benefit from development and the whole ambience would be much improved by taking this out of commercial use. However the proposal seeks to fit too much in and is cramped. The four semi-detached properties that face Curtis Road are positioned too close to the road and do not follow the building line of the adjacent houses (which the World of Beds building actually follows too).
The comment in the planning statement - that the new gardens are ‘slightly’ smaller than their neighbours, but not a dissimilar size to the existing more modern properties to the south of the site – is inaccurate. The proposed gardens are about a third of the size of the neighbours in the 1930s semi-detached houses, and the poorly-planned modern development to the south should not be used as a precedent for insufficient garden sizes.
We would suggest a reduction to perhaps 5 units which with a re-planned layout could form an appropriate development.
29 Lime Tree Road Norwich
21/00140/O
Description: Subdivision of garden and construction of dwelling with all matters reserved
Comments: Whilst an innovative design, we think the site would be too cramped in comparison to the current density levels in the street, with the new building squeezed between no. 29, a pleasant 1930s dwelling, and the new modern house no. 27b. We therefore object to this proposal.
49 Sotherton Road Norwich
21/00081/F
Description: Sub-division of plot and construction of 2 no. dwellings.
Comments: The Committee was of a single mind for this application, that we object strongly to this proposal. It goes totally contrary to the layout of this whole estate, which gives good space around the dwellings especially at the junctions with the side cul-de-sacs. This scheme would impose two new dwellings onto this communal green space and give precedence for similar schemes to destroy the character of the area. Every end-of-terrace in Sotherton Road has a similar large garden, and a precedent set here could mean doubling the number of houses in the road.
29 Lime Tree Road Norwich
21/00140/O
Description: Subdivision of garden and construction of dwelling with all matters reserved.
Comments:
Whilst an innovative design, we think the site would be too cramped in comparison to the current density levels in the street, with the new building squeezed between no. 29, a pleasant 1930s dwelling, and the new modern house no. 27b. We therefore object to this proposal.
King Street Stores 189 King Street Norwich
20/01263/F
Description: Demolition of existing buildings and structures, construction of 18no. dwellings, creation of new public riverside access/walkway with associated works
Comments: We wish to strongly object to this application. It would appear that both Sophia Bix, the City's Conservation Officer, and David Eve from Historic England, are opposed to this scheme. The listed King Street Stores is at the back of the site, and has been used by the council as a storehouse for years, but viewed from its river frontage, it looks rather splendid with art deco tiling and a real 'presence'. Historically there were maltings on this area, going back to medieval times.
The proposed two rows of mis-proportioned four-storey town houses are simply not in keeping with the neighbouring listed buildings. The plan is to demolish not only the warehouse on the riverfront, but also the rather interesting wall with 'windows' onto King Street. Both Sophia Bix and David Eve suggest that the listed building be retained and restored. There is a large area of hardstanding on the King Street front which could be used for a small number (say 4) of two-and-a-half storey new dwellings, still leaving room for an amenity area. This would sit more comfortably with the preserved Ferryboat Inn next door.
20/01263/F
Re-consultation for revised scheme: We are pleased to see that the scheme has been amended in light of the previous objections. Most of the listed buildings are now retained, with a predominantly brick frontage onto King St.
10 To 12 London Street Norwich
21/00007/F
Description: Demolition to rear, erection of rear and upward extensions, conversion to 16 No. apartments and retention of 3 No. retail units.
Comments: This is an important site with a building designed by Edward Boardman. This seems an appropriate conversion, which retains the main retail frontage – very important at this key location – although the creation of apartments in this central retail area will require careful attention to issues such as access, parking and delivery arrangements etc.
We are supportive of the extension in principle. The cranking along the north elevation will create some interest to the elevation and echo the light and shadows created by the windows on lower levels. We also like the reference made to the existing fenestration at the east end. However the west end cuts back rather abruptly to form the roof terrace as opposed to the historic upper storey which followed the building line around
46 Earlham Green Lane Norwich
21/00250/F
Description: Change of use from C3 to Sue Generis (7 bedroom HMO) with garage conversion, extension to garage conversion and extension link from main house to garage conversion.
Comments: This proposal is shocking in its extent, taking over a wide area adjoining the neighbour’s boundary. The impact on neighbours would be our main concern, but the neighbouring houses may already have been converted in this way. It is over-development of the site but this is probably an instance where the horse has already bolted. We object to these proposals in principle.
81 Park Lane Norwich
21/00333/F
Description: Demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey dwelling.
Comments: A member of our Committee visited the site and considers that far too much is being crammed on a small infill site which is inappropriate for a separate unit - primarily by the restraints imposed by the windows of the existing building. A simple extension of the existing unit could be acceptable in principle but the design sits awkwardly on this site, and leaves no space at all for residents at no. 81.
We have had separate representation about the intended demolition of the original red brick wall which borders the approach into Maida Vale, as the front wall of new house would sit on the street frontage.
We therefore object to this application.
Blueberry Pub 20 Cowgate Norwich
21/00182/F
Description: Demolition of existing building and construction of 3.5 and 4 storey building to provide 23 no. one bedroom flats with associated works.
Comments: Whereas the height is probably appropriate for this city centre site, the design is unimaginative. The lack of variety of form and articulation makes it look particularly massive. The change from the mansard roof round the corner to the full height block is of poor proportion. There is no local context - why not reference the attractive historic elevations in the DAS with their top floor weavers’ windows and variety of fenestration. We consider the development principle is appropriate for the site, however we strongly object to this application in terms of design quality.
Revised submission:
It was stated in correspondence from the applicant that the Norwich Society 'approves of the height specifically'. Our wording actually said ‘the height is probably appropriate’ which is rather different. We consider that this is certainly an improvement on the previous scheme. However we are unclear why they don't have the ground floor flats accessible directly from the street, rather than entered from the rear. This would make them more in keeping with other properties on these streets, and may eliminate the ground floor internal corridor; this would give extra space to the flats and less of a bottleneck in a fire escape situation.
In summary we do not oppose the scheme and this represents an improvement, but we still feel there is scope for improvement in design quality
Earlham Court Heigham Grove
21/00212/F
Description: Two storey upward extension to create 8 new flats.
Comments: Although the tower block to the south gives some precedent for a tall building, however an additional two storeys this close to Earlham Road streetscape creates a massive block which is overwhelming & out of context. Its visual impact is detrimental to the whole surrounding area and would be completely overpowering to neighbouring development. There is a lack of any additional amenity space.
The documentation submitted is poor and gives no indication of context which is particularly important since the proposal will dominate everything around it.
We therefore strongly object to these proposals.
66 Constitution Hill Norwich
21/00431/F
Description: Sub-division of garden with demolition of existing rear garage and construction of dwelling. Alterations to access at front of dwelling to create off road parking.
Comments: This is a large 3-bed house, and our concern is more about the relationship with the end terrace 5/7 Sewell Road, rather than with the existing bungalow. Sewell Road is an attractive row of terraces, particularly the first one, and the design of the new house has made no attempt to harmonise with these, and in fact visually conflicts. The render and brick references from the existing bungalow do not suit the new design and exacerbate its poor proportions. A much simpler design without the two gables would fit in much better. There is also very restricted amenity space for the new house. Neither house will have much garden once the front garden is practically halved to create parking spaces.
1 Ferry Road Norwich
21/00428/F
Description: Extensions and external alterations to create additional residential and commercial floor space, including one additional storey comprised of two residential apartments.
Comments: We are pleased to see the building being repaired and reused, and consider that the extension is well-designed. The DAS is also really
well presented and very clear. We therefore offer our full support for these proposals.
5 Guildhall Hill Norwich
21/00494/F
Description: Conversion and change of use of existing building, demolition of existing retail (E) unit and extension to provide a new retail (E) unit, a reconfigured retail unit and a hotel (C1) with restaurant and ancillary accommodation and new flexible space for commercial, business and service and/or hot food takeaway (E and or sui generis).
Comments: We received an excellent presentation from the applicants, and are fully supportive of these proposals. The general approach is very good and seems to cover all the heritage aspects. The design blends in well with the streetscape, and we particularly like the proposed glazed bricks with their reference to the Royal Arcade. There is certainly a need for a quality hotel in Norwich city centre, and this one appears to have good accommodation for families as well as couples/singles. The idea of integrating coffee shops and small businesses into the ground floor will add to the variety of retail outlets and atmosphere of the Lanes.
We have no objection to five storeys in this location – indeed that is the height of the existing block. Some of the rear-facing rooms on the upper floors are rather tight and have only very small windows looking onto the roof of the delivery yard, but this is probably inevitable in such a city centre location. We are pleased to see the maple is being carefully conserved, however the delivery bay off Pottergate has always been a problem and lorries have great difficulty, especially if there are (illegally) parked cars in that area. In that respect the proposal is nothing new, as long as it ensures that parking and deliveries for the proposed hotel are not adding to those problems. In fact the size of delivery vehicles for Tesco is limited already by the tortuous approach via Cow Hill/Pottergate and Exchange Street/ Pottergate junctions. We understand that the inner courtyard, which is not visible from the street, is being retained and enhanced with planting, and we look forward to seeing landscaping proposals for this.
Fieldgate Town Close Road Norwich
21/00646/F
Description: Demolition of bungalow and construction of dwelling with associated works.
Comments: This scheme is greatly improved upon previous proposals for this site by the omission of the free-standing garage to the front of the property, which, falling ahead of the predominant building line, encroached on the character of the conservation area. The relation of the building in this proposal in terms of size and massing to the nearby listed buildings is improved upon earlier versions.
The design is a departure from the prevailing character of this part of the conservation area. We do not object to this, provided that the prevailing character of conservation area can be fully appreciated and is not unduly disrupted. We feel that the view of 13 Town Close Road will be harmed by the presence of this development as a backdrop when viewed from the entrance to this property, but such harm is less than substantial.
We do not feel that the context of any other listed building is affected by this development, and that the proposal does not generally harm the conservation area.
BT Telephone Exchange Westwick House 70 Westwick Street Norwich
22/01368/F
Description: Erection of Retirement Living Apartments (Use Class C3); associated access, car parking, landscaping, ancillary facilities and associated works.
Comments:
he building is very close to the river so there is very little green space. Most of the open land is to the south along the street and is car park. Should this building not have underground or ground floor parking so that it can be set further back from the river and there can be more garden space for the residents?
We agree with the following comments already posted on the Council’s website:
• needs active frontage on all elevations
• needs the massing broken up by varied shapes rather than a big block with gables stuck on the top
• black brick should at least go all the way from the top to the bottom to break up the huge block
• car park creates poor realm for city centre
Site Of 238A Dereham Road Norwich
22/01471/F
Description: Nine new dwellings with associated external works.
Comments: It is good to see something coming forward at last. The proposals seem generally to be in proportion to surrounding terraced housing, although the corner unit (three storeys with monopitch roof) is rather out of keeping with the remainder; it presents a square and blunt front on a triangular piece of land. While triangular rooms are clearly not attractive to a developer, there could at least be some narrowing of the building as it gets near to the acute-angled corner (e.g. make it only one room deep).
