For full list click here

For full list click here

For full list click here

For full list click here

For full list click here

For full list click here

''Despite personal representations by the Society's planning committee chairman at today's Norwich city planning committee, by a majority of one, the committee voted in favour of allowing the Habitat building in London St. Norwich to be totally remodelled. This meant the destruction of the unique flowing brick facade facing London St. with its oriel windows and graceful columns that create the unusual colonade. It will be replaced by a very mundane and rigid design with exposed brick columns that emphasise its vertical structural frame. Although the developer has put back the colonnade, albeit in a cruder form, this scheme is another bit of decent architecture of the 70s that is peculiar to a 'fine city' disappearing and being replaced by something that could be in any urban shopping street.

With regard to schemes still to go before the City Council:-
The planning appraisal committee welcomed the design of a new footbridge over the river Wensum provided by the Jarrold development between the river and Barrack St. The committee did, however, question the colouring of handrails and the use of a stainless steel mesh that could be misused by children.

The committee were concerned with the persistant use by supermarkets of their standard designs regardless of the context of any proposed site. Such was the case with an Aldi proposed box for a site in Plumstead Rd Norwich. The principle of this policy being challenged is being taken up by the Society with the City Council.

Whilst delighted to see a contemporary styled scheme to provide housing on a former warehouse site off Muspole St. Norwich, which used some existing industrial buildings for flats, it was disappointing to experience yet again the developer trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. It was also overladen with vehicle accommodation and consequent movement constraints all at the expense of any real amenity provision.

A good example of usefully using existing buildings was welcomed in respect of an empty office block in St Vedas St. ,in central Norwich, being turned into an hotel.

Finally, did you know that as from October 2008, the Government are allowing house owners to build up to two storey extensions at the rear of their property, providing it extends to no more than 10 feet, without planning permission. This is to help home owners who find it difficult to afford moving to bigger homes and to also help ease planners heavy workload. Although Building Regulations still apply, it is likely to remove 80,000 applications a year from the current planning system. There will still be measures to control obtrusive developments.

In the front of the house the situation is quite different regarding the garden. There will be restrictions if one wants to hard pave it because such action creates surface water run off that contributes to overloading the sewer systems which can lead to flooding.

On May 12 Frank Tucker, Chairman of the Planning Appraisals Committee and I gave evidence to one of two visiting inspectors from  the Audit Commission  on the strengths and weaknesses that we perceived in the City Planning Department. Their report has now been published, and can be accessed HERE.
          As you’ll see (the summary on Pp 5 & 6 is very useful), and as Frank and I expected, it’s a bit of a curate’s egg of a judgement. The planning service is reckoned to offer only a “fair”, one-star service, with “uncertain” prospects for improvement. On the other hand, staff know what needs to be done, and are judged to be in a fair way to do it.
          I feel that this fits in very well with our experience. The new Head of Planning Graham Nelson has now been to meetings of both the Strategic Planning and Transport Committee and the PAC, where he took part in what could fairly be called spirited discussions, and he has our respect and best wishes in his plans to improve his service.
          As we have argued in our submission to the Boundary Committee on the Unitary Authority proposals, many of the City Council Planning Department’s weaknesses stem from the fact that Norwich is only a district council, with the lesser powers and finances that go with that status, while it has to grapple with the very complex problems that arise in a community where conservation and the dynamics of growth pull in often conflicting directions.
          One point interested me in particular. The Commission recognises that “Councillor capabilities are… inconsistent and training is not well developed”.  It is in everybody’s interest that councillors should be well versed in the complexities as well as the possibilities of the City’s planning procedures. Perhaps we could help here? Something on which to ponder.

For full list click here

08/00490/F - The Lind car showrooms Ber Street
The committee appreciated the fact that the application sets the scheme into context.
The buildings on the smaller (west) site are acceptable, though a little too high. On the larger (east) site there exists the issue of building on a prominent ridge on the Norwich skyline. Previous comments expressed concern about the height of the proposed buildings. This proposal, though lower and stepped back, is still too high, especially viewed across the city, and can be seen as overbearing. The adjacent development below Foulgers Opening is an example of how building on a steeply sloping site can dominate the landscape from below.

08/00589/NF3 - Chapelfield Plain
Whilst appreciating that erecting a large screen for viewing the Olympic Games provides a public service, there is concern that religious services at St Stephen’s Church should not be disturbed. The wonderful panorama of the city from inside the Chapelfield mall will be marred by a huge black rectangle blocking out the light as well as the view.

08/00561/F - Grove Walk
The committee enjoyed this rather extravagant plan, and felt it gave a ‘lift’ to the corner and the streetscene.

08/00044/O - rear of Catton Grove Road
We trust this will not create a precedent in an area which is low-density.