Planning Application Comments 2026

The Planning Appraisal Committee (PAC) reviews and comments on planning decisions to the City Council on behalf of the Society, with a particular focus on larger developments and those involving demolition or significant alterations or affecting listed buildings. The committee’s overarching goals are to protect the important architectural heritage of Norwich and to ensure that new development is of high quality and will become our city’s legacy for the future.

The PAC Chair looks at every application and shortlists those which fall within the PAC’s terms of reference, which focusses on their impact on the heritage, built form and public environment of their surroundings. We look at most larger applications, such as individual or groups of new dwellings, commercial and retail schemes. We especially consider applications which involve demolition or significant alterations, and those which affect listed buildings. Proposals within Conservation Areas will also be scrutinised more closely. The Planning Appraisal Committee (PAC) considers applications which are within the Norwich City Council area, and will only consider an application which lies outside the Council’s jurisdiction if it is a major scheme which will have an impact on the City itself.

Below is a list of our most recent and significant comments - former comments on Anglia Square can be found separately here. This list is not comprehensive, but all our comments can be found on Norwich City Council’s planning application website, where members of the public can also view and comment on plans.

Ref: 26/00164 Norwich Playhouse, 42-58 St Georges Street, Norwich, NR3 1AB. 26/04/2026

Refurbishment and extension of Norwich Playhouse.

The Norwich Society is generally supportive of the current plans for the redevelopment of this important site at the western gateway to the City.

The Society accepts that there is no realistic prospect of substantial new employment activities on this site and therefore welcomes such a residential-led alternative. We commend the master planning work which has been undertaken, which has produced a logical and legible layout, and we especially welcome the full retention of the established and mature landscaped areas and their availability for future public use. Any contribution which this scheme can make to the improvement of the pedestrian underpasses which connect the site to the city centre would also be especially valuable.

We have no objection in principle to the concept of new build for private rental and can readily imagine that it will prove an attractive offering to a section of the housing market seeking a base adjacent to the city centre. Our concern, once again, is that this proposal is seeking a complete exemption from the Council’s affordable housing requirements on the grounds of overall viability. If a site of this size and potential is unable to make an on or off-site contribution towards pressing needs, it is difficult to imagine where this will ever occur. The Council will therefore want to test rigorously the viability evidence that has been advanced.

The Society agrees with the overall assessments of heritage impact that have been expressed by Historic England and others and therefore does not object to the scheme on that basis. Pointers to the site’s railway past are naturally very welcome. The Society does however question the merits of the decision to take inspiration from Needham Place in designing Building 1A. This has produced an unconvincing pastiche of an industrial building which appears incongruous in the setting of the overall development. Had such a building already existed, its retention could no doubt have been demanded, but as a new build it offers a visually weak landmark at the gateway to the development when approached by the city centre. If the Council is minded to grant permission, the Society would suggest that this aspect of the scheme be subject to detailed re-examination before development commences.

Ref: 25/01197/F Victoria House Queens Road Norwich, NR1 3QQ.

Redevelopment of Victoria House, comprising the erection of up to 432 residential units (Class C3) commercial, business and service floorspace (Class E), together with open space, car and cycle parking, and associated infrastructure and landscaping.

Ref: 25/01138/F Former Woodside Campus Plumstead Road East And Witard Road Norwich. 26/01/2026

Proposed demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment for an affordable. Housing scheme comprising up to 77no. extra care (Use Class C3(b)) units, up to 22no. Supported living (Use Class C3(b)) units and up to 28no. general needs (Use Class C3(a)) homes, air source heat pumps, solar PV, landscaping, drainage, parking, sub stations, cycle stores, sprinkler tanks, bin stores and associated works.

We are fully supportive of this scheme.

It is Norfolk County Council's ambition to deliver more than 1,000 affordable rental units by 2028; there is a critical shortage of specialist and family housing. To quote, 'Affordable homes for life for elderly and vulnerable residents who are able to live independently but have intermediate care needs.'

This is a Places for People scheme who describe this scheme as 'A new affordable housing scheme for older residents in Norwich to provide 54 1-bed apartments & 23 2-bed extra care apartments, 12 1-bed supported living apartments in a self-contained unit, 10 supported living bungalows and 28 affordable family houses + communal facilities.

This is a therefore a collaboration between local authority, NHS and developer, which seems a sensible approach. The scheme itself sits well on the site, with two large 3-storey blocks of 1-bed and 2-bed supported living and extra care apartments in 'warehouse style' red brick/steep-pitched roof buildings. Access roads are well-placed. The general family housing is decent 2-storey brick and tile semis. The 10 supported living bungalows are again simply-designed brick and tile semis. The communal orchard gardens and wildflower areas are well placed for all residents to make use of them.
There is plenty of car and bike parking, for staff as well as residents. Air source heat pumps and solar panels contribute to sustainable goals.

To the north end of the site there is an NHS surgery, a pharmacy and a care home, so these facilities greatly enhance the site of a social housing scheme of this type.

Ref: 25/00590/F St Faiths House, Mountergate, Norwich, NR1 1QA 28/03/2026

Conversion of existing St Faiths to 6no self contained flats, demolition of existing outbuilding, construction of 3 storey building containing 3no flats and external alterations.

St Faith's House is a magnificent Georgian mansion and we fully support its restoration and its conversion into 6no. flats. However we strongly object to the proposed block of three flats located very close in front of and at right angles to the building, which severely compromises the appearance and setting of the listed building. It is important to not just preserve the building itself but its courtyard setting, and the view of the St Faith House façade from Baltic Wharf.

The pastiche style with minimal consideration for detailing results in absence of visual character from the new block, and its massing appears incongruous next to St Faith's classic Georgian proportions. The 3-storey block, although slightly lower than the house due to the lower ceiling heights, still conflicts visually with the main house; if this design was to be retained, it would be preferable to reduce it to 2 storeys, with ceiling heights similar to the main house, allowing the windows to match its Georgian proportions.

However in preference to that, we would suggest a complete re-think for the new building. Perhaps a lower building along the street frontage with a central opening providing views through into the courtyard, similar in concept to a traditional college quadrangle; another option would be two-storey wings down each side these could be more contemporary in nature to contrast with the main house rather than competing with it.

We would also strongly support the recommendation that an archaeological investigation is carried out for this medieval site.

Ref: 25/00520/F 125-133 King Street, Norwich.

Redevelopment of land at 125-133 king street including retention and regeneration of the existing listed buildings to king street/ old barge yard.

The proposals involve the redevelopment/ refurbishment of the block between King Street and the river, next to the site known as St Ann’s Lane and now largely redeveloped.
The proposals are broadly consistent with the form of redevelopment that has taken place on the site to the north, in terms of proposed residential uses, the scale and mixed density of the proposals and in terms of height of buildings.

Part of the site (fronting the river) has previously been granted permission for redevelopment up to six storeys in height and, whilst that permission has lapsed, the considerations to be applied to the site now remain similar.

The form and design of the proposals are also consistent with the historic form of development, in so far as that remains, albeit not incorporating the commercial uses that were previously part of the history of this site.

In the view of the Norwich Society this is necessary in order to achieve the satisfactory redevelopment/ refurbishment of the site and the listed buildings within it. Any more complicated mix of uses would just cause further delay and loss of value to the land and thus jeopardise achieving the regeneration necessary here.
In terms of the river frontage area, we believe the scale and design of the proposals are consistent with adjoining areas and with what has taken place in other sites further south down King Street. We do, however, have some slight concern that the scheme does not include any design proposals for the Riverside Walk – which is allowed for, but is said to be in City Council ownership. We believe it is important as part of the overall form of development, that proposals are brought forward now to include the design of the Riverside Walk and agreement reached between the City Council and the developer as to whose responsibility the different elements are and how that can be achieved.
The other concern we have is the link to the adjacent pedestrian bridge, which is also not shown in design terms. There is an adjacent permission, which has not yet been implemented. Again this is a matter for the City Council, but in granting permission for this scheme, the City Council needs to assure itself that the legal framework between the different ownerships can be agreed and will lead to a satisfactory conclusion - the danger being that there is a no-man’s land left between these two sites and the Riverside Walk is not connected up between the two developments.

In all other respects we welcome this proposal and raise no further concerns about its approval.

Ref: 24/01259/F 46-70 Mountergate, Norwich.

Demolition of former Former Car Dealership

The proposal is for the demolition of the former Mountergate Car Dealership building, which has been unused in recent years.

Our first comment is that this has been wrongly titled as demolition of a car park building, where this site has never been occupied or approved for that purpose.
In the City Centre Conservation Area, proposals for demolition of existing buildings should normally be accompanied by proposals that demonstrate future use and redevelopment of the site. This application does not do that, suggesting only that the site will be left vacant and used for public car parking. This is unsuitable in this location and is contrary to the policies DM3 and DM28 outlined in the Appendix 3 to the Development Management Policies Plan, which seek that the visual impact of car parking on townscape should be considered. Nor does such a proposal provide any appropriate indication of future development of the site. Leaving a vacant site here would detract visually from nearby heritage buildings and attractive modern infill development.

Nor is there any need in principle for public parking in this location. Surface parking should not be seen as an acceptable use in this part of the Conservation Area and would tend to create precedent for other such vacant land to be retained in the area.

The proposal for surface car parking use is also contrary to other City Council policies on parking provision in the city centre (The Transportation Requirements of the Development Management Policies Plan). Previous approvals for parking (multi-storey) have satisfied the need for parking in this location. Provision in an unplanned manner, such as this proposal, would only be likely to increase unsustainable vehicle movements into the City Centre and hence undermine the principles of the transport policies for the City Centre.

Ref: 24/01050/F Nelson Hotel, Prince Of Wales Road. Norwich. NR1 1DX. 01/10/2024

Hybrid (Part Full/Part Outline) for the redevelopment of Nelson Hotel. A full planning application for demolition of existing buildings and structures and phased development comprising of new hotel (Class C1), purposed built student accommodation (Sui Generis), and Class E floorspace, public realm, landscaping, with improvements to River Walkway; with new primary access from Mountergate and egress onto Baltic Wharf; internal roads, car and cycle parking, servicing, plant and associated works. An outline application with all matters reserved for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and replacement with a residential (Class C3) development, landscaping and cycle parking with associated works.

The Norwich Society welcomes the opportunities that redevelopment of this site offers. The hotel building is dated in function and appearance, and the rest of the site is occupied by unwelcoming car parking and hardstandings.

1. Development layout The proposals have put forward the creation of a new riverside walk, public open space, and new connections through the site to Mountergate and King Street; it also takes the opportunity to open up a view of the Castle from the station forecourt. The area around the development site remains unplanned, and we hope the Council will take the opportunity to put forward Planning Guidance as to how the surrounding areas can be connected and visually integrated with the site, especially if
there is a continuing need for a school building within it. We are disappointed that apart from one proposed residential block, which is at outline stage only, the residential accommodation on the site will be yet more student housing, and that there is no provision of affordable housing - we understand that there were no expressions of interest from providers, and the reasons for this need to be investigated and rectiﬁed. It is surely of concern to the Council that this is another site where the housing content is still uncertain and markedly less than their planning brief envisaged, contributing to a mounting housing pipeline problem, exacerbated currently of course by nutrient neutrality restrictions. We agree with Design South East’s Design Review Panel comment regarding the large amount of vehicular access within the public realm – as far as we can see, this has not been reduced signiﬁcantly in the submitted version. Cycle and pedestrian routes could also be rationalised as part of this review.

2. Building heights:
Appendix A of the DAS describes the record of consultations, which conﬁrm that the concerns about building heights have not been resolved in the submitted scheme:
• Pre-app meeting no. 5 stated that the scheme was largely supported by Norwich Council, but concerns remained about the overall massing • Pre-application Meeting 6/Historic England Review 01 states: ‘There was discussion regarding the height of the main hotel block and the PBSA blocks which framed the public space. These were noted
as being overly tall in the context of the historic townscape, and should be reduced’ We generally agree with Historic England’s comments, however if the hotel can be designed as a ‘gateway element’, there may be limited scope for additional height above the typical 2, 3 or max.4 storeys of the surrounding conservation area; however 7no. storeys appears too imposing. Design South East’s Design Review Panel did not express concerns about height, which also therefore implies that there may be limited scope for heights above the 4-storey maximum. Consideration will be needed of how the heights will modulate across the site to relate in height and scale with the historic buildings in Prince of Wales Road and King Street.

3. Hotel:
As stated in Historic England’s consultation response, we also call for re-consideration of the hotel façade treatment, particularly to Prince of Wales Road. The Design South East’s Design Review Panel recommended further design development: ‘focus work on the form, massing and façade treatment to give the development more of a uniﬁed but distinctive character that relates to the heritage of this part of Norwich.

The vertical elevational treatment is heavy and out of scale, and appears to have been ‘ﬂown in’ to replicate the Premier Inn façade style at Borough High Street, London and New Waverley, Edinburgh (ref. DAS section 2.1). In our opinion this treatment does not accord with the ﬁndings of the local character studies, which have translated well into the rest of the scheme, i.e. the use of pitched roofs and gables and appropriate detailing to soften their mass. The sketches testing roof form do not seem to have been carried forward into the current proposals. The block has no reference to local design vernacular or traditional features, and the present design does not form the gateway statement to the city which is needed from the train station.

4. PBSA blocks
The two student blocks have an appropriate 'warehouse' aesthetic, i.e. the use of pitched roofs and gables and appropriate detailing to break down their mass, which has evolved from the local character studies, and has translated well into the rest of the scheme. The double gable ends work well as a traditional industrial style proﬁle which occurs elsewhere in the City, and breaks down the gables into a suitable scale and proportion.

5. Materiality:
Materiality was discussed at the Pre-application Meeting 6/Historic England Review 01, with ‘a preference for brick, corten and timber material palettes which respond better to the history of the site’. As previously described, this palette works well for the PBSA blocks, but is not reﬂected in the hotel façade.

6. Sustainability
One of the primary concerns of the Norwich Society is climate change and the impact that this is already having on our City. We would therefore strongly support Design South East’s call for: ‘a more ambitious and detailed approach to sustainability, testing the feasibility of introducing Passivhaus standards, water source heat pumps, and photovoltaic panels.’ We welcome the intention in the Energy Statement to utilise air-source heat pumps, MVHR systems and PV panels. However at the Norwich Society’s recent Climate Change conference, Prof. David Pearson from Star Renewable Energy put forward a convincing argument for water-based heat pumps, which did not match the dismissive comments in the Energy Report. We would therefore ask that these are properly considered in detail proposals going forward.

Ref: 24/00012/F Orford House, Orford Place, Norwich, NR1 3RZ. 04/01/2024

Demolition of existing building to lower ground floor and redevelopment to provide purpose-built student accommodation of up to 377 beds (Class Sui Generis), ground floor and lower ground floor retail/leisure space up to 1,478m2 (Class E), internal and external amenity space and associated infrastructure.

48. The Norwich Society continues to object to several aspects of the planning proposals in their revised form and believes that further revisions will be required before any grant of planning permission is warranted. 49. In April 2024 we set out our objections to the original proposals and essentially made four points:

1. We argued that the application had not as yet satisfactorily demonstrated that retention and conversion of the current Debenhams building was impractical or unviable and we also argued that the application had failed to demonstrate the exceptional overriding benefits that would be needed to justify demolition of a non-designated heritage asset.
2. We argued that the proposed redevelopment would in fact cause demonstrable harm to the surrounding historic environment as a result of its overall scale, massing and detailed design. (We note that this view was subsequently endorsed both by Historic England and by the Council’s own Conservation and Design team in statements posted on the Council’s website in July 2024).

3. We stressed the importance in any necessary redevelopment of retaining an active ground floor retail presence. Our concern was that the proposed layout offered a ‘dead’ frontage to much of Red Lion Street and we argued that the minimal servicing arrangements proposed would in practice deter prospective retailers from ever taking up occupation of the retail space allocated. 4. Finally, we expressed our ongoing concern at the proposal for yet more purpose built student accommodation in the city centre, coming as it does at the exclusion of any other form of residential accommodation that would meet the City’s most pressing housing needs.

50. This Norwich Society response to the revised application now follows and takes each of the four above themes in turn.

1. The revised application has now provided a much fuller analysis of the potential alternative uses of the present building, with or without extensive alterations and partial demolition. The Norwich Society agrees that there is currently no realistic prospect of a viable retail or leisure use for the current accommodation and that a substantial degree of internal demolition and reconstruction would be needed to accommodate almost any conceivable non retail use, especially a residential one. As we argued in April 2024, Debenhams is a building very much of its age, but it is not without its flaws and we remain open to the suggestion that that a redevelopment of the site will ultimately prove necessary. In our judgement, the building’s current facades are not of such outstanding quality that they should be retained at all costs and indeed they would clearly be ill-suited to the internal lighting needs of any new accommodation built within. Therefore, as previously, the Norwich Society objects to this revised application, not on the fundamental principle of the building’s loss but from continuing concerns about the quality of its intended replacement and its heritage and townscape impacts.

2. The Norwich Society naturally welcomes the decision to reduce the northern end of the development by two storeys, and to amend its finishes, but does not believe that this is sufficient to avoid altogether the harms which have previously been identified. Without setbacks, this northern section will still read as the tallest element of the development in the street scene and will loom over its historic neighbours. That is, of course, what the present building does at this point, but in such an important historic setting it is regrettable to see a design which opts to exploit the worst aspect of its predecessor. 3. The latest plans do not make any material change to the ground floor layout and therefore our concern at the prospect of unlettable retail spaces and ‘dead’ street frontages remains.

4. Of course. the Norwich Society’s concern at the proliferation of new purpose built student accommodation also remains and is not allayed by the small reduction in bedroom numbers in the revised plans. The Society accepts that current market conditions are particularly conducive to such schemes and that the Council’s policies now offer some encouragement to this. However, the applicant’s estimation of continuing unmet need rests upon the assumption that student numbers (including oversees students) will continue to rise, that all will in future insist on purpose-built accommodation (and be able to afford it) and that the traditional stock of converted bedsit accommodation will therefore be progressively freed up for alternative residential reuse. There are grounds for doubting each of these assumptions.

Future Norwich Planning Application Comments 2026