Case Reference: 3225505

Our ref: APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Peter Luder Your ref: -
c/o Weston Homes Plc
Weston Group Business Centre
Parsonage Road
Takeley
Essex 12 November 2020
CM22 6PU
Dear Sir,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77
APPLICATION MADE BY WESTON HOMES PLC, COLUMBIA THREADNEEDLE B/O
SACKVILLE UK PROPERTY SELECT II (GP) NO 3 LIMITED, AND SACKVILLE UK
PROPERTY SELECT II NOMINEE (3) LIMITED (AS TRUSTEES FOR THREADNEEDLE
UK PROPERTY SELECT II SUB-PARTNERSHIP NO 3 LP)
ANGLIA SQUARE, NORWICH, NR3 1DZ
APPLICATION REF: 18/00330/F
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the
report of David Prentis BA BPI MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry between 28
January 2020 and 28 February 2020 into your client’s application for planning permission
for the comprehensive redevelopment of Anglia Square and adjacent land on Edward
Street for up to 1250 dwellings, hotel, ground floor retail and commercial floorspace,
cinema, multi-storey car parks, place of worship and associated works to the highway
and public realm areas, with the full description of development set out at Annex B of this
decision letter, in accordance with application ref: 18/00330/F, dated 6 March 2018.
2. On 21 March 2019, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your client’s application be referred to him
instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that the application be approved and planning permission
granted.
4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions, and disagrees with his recommendation. He has decided to refuse planning
permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph
numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 3594
Andrew Lynch, Decision Officer Email: PCC@communities.gov.uk
Planning Casework Unit
Environmental Statement
5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental
Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, and the environmental information submitted
before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR590,
the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement, and other additional
information provided, complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information
has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal.
Procedural matters
6. As set out at IR2, the application was subject to a number of amendments following the
original submission to the Council, with a revised application form, dated 28 August 2018,
subsequently submitted. The Secretary of State has made his decision based on this
version of the application.
7. The Secretary of State notes that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis of these revised
proposals (IR2). Given this, he does not consider that these changes raise any matters
that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to
reaching his decision on this application, and he is satisfied that no interests have
thereby been prejudiced.
Matters arising since the close of the inquiry
8. A list of representations which have been received since the inquiry is at Annex A.
Copies of these letters may be obtained on request to the email address at the foot of the
first page of this letter. In the representation dated 14 September, points were made
which sought to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to emerging medical evidence
with regard to air quality and the incidence and severity of Covid-19, and also to a Pre-
Action Protocol letter seeking an early review of the Government’s Clean Air Strategy.
Given that the outcome of any challenge to the Clean Air Strategy is not yet known, and
given his decision is to refuse this application, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the
issues raised do not affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised in this
correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate referral back to parties.
Policy and statutory considerations
9. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
10. In this case the development plan consists of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland,
Norwich and South Norfolk (March 2011) together with amendments adopted in January
2014 (JCS), the Norwich Development Management Policies Local Plan (December
2014) (DM), and the Norwich Development Site Allocations Local Plan (December 2014)
(SA). The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include
those set out at IR23-28.
11. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include
the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning
guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as the Norwich City Centre Conservation Area
12. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the
desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or
their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may
possess.
13. The application site is located within the Norwich City Centre Conservation Area
(NCCCA). In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special
attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of
conservation areas.
Emerging plan
14. The emerging plan comprises the Greater Norwich Local Plan. Paragraph 48 of the
Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging
plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to
which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3)
the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. As this
plan is at an early stage, with the required publication and consultation stages still be
completed, and is not expected to undergo public examination until late 2021, the
Secretary of State considers it can carry only very limited weight in the determination of
this application.
Main issues
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with policies for delivering a
sufficient supply of homes
15. The proposal is for up to 1250 homes (IR31) in total. For the purposes of determining this
application, the housing land supply figure is calculated across the three Greater Norwich
Districts, and the most recent figure is 5.89 years (IR431). However, the Secretary of
State notes the Inspector’s comments that within Norwich it is just 4 years, that there has
been historic under-delivery against the targets of the JCS (IR431), and that this
application represents the most significant housing project in Norwich. In overall housing
numbers, this application would equate to around two years of Norwich’s housing needs
(IR432).
16. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis of the range of
unit sizes and types at IR433-435. For the reasons given there, he agrees with the
Inspector that the particular circumstances of the site justify the proposed housing mix,
and there is no conflict with policy DM12(d).
17. There would be 120 affordable homes, equating to 10% of the total, with a tenure split of
85% social rent, 15% affordable rent or another form of intermediate housing (IR8). A
provision of 10% affordable housing is below the target of 33% in large developments set
out in policy JCS4, but the Secretary of State notes that this may be reduced where the
development would be unviable in current market conditions (IR436), and that it was
common ground between the applicants, the Council and Historic England that the
scheme is marginally viable with 10% affordable housing (IR437). He also notes that the
Section 106 agreement includes a review mechanism, and additional affordable housing
could be secured if viability improves during the implementation period (IR439). For the
reasons given at IR436-440, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR598
that the amount of affordable housing is the most that could be achieved in current
market conditions, and that the proposal accords with JCS4.
18. The Secretary of State notes that concerns were raised at the Inquiry around the number
of single-aspect dwellings in the proposal. For the reasons given at IR441, he agrees with
the Inspector that the approach taken with regard to the provision of residential
accommodation would inevitably result in significant numbers of single aspect units,
accessed by corridors which would not have natural light, and he agrees that this would
be a disadvantage of the design. While the Secretary of State recognises that the flats
would meet the technical standards required and have been carefully designed to
overcome as far as possible the disadvantages of single-aspect dwellings (with floor to
ceiling glazing, balconies and access to communal outdoor roof gardens), he considers
that the disadvantages cannot entirely be overcome in this way. He considers that the
use of single-aspect dwellings in such large quantities is a significantly sub-optimal
design solution in this scheme, and is not outweighed by the advantages relating to
access, frontages and safety (IR441). He therefore finds, contrary to the Inspector at
IR612, that the proposal would conflict with the requirements in policy DM13 and DM2 for
a high standard of amenity for future residents.
19. For the reasons given here, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the
proposal would accord with JCS4 (IR598). He therefore agrees with the Inspector that the
proposal’s significant contribution to meeting housing need in Norwich should attract
significant weight, and the proposal’s significant contribution to meeting the need for
affordable housing in Norwich should also attract significant weight (IR544). With regard to
Policy DM12, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector at IR611 that the
proposal accords with the policy. Policy DM12 sets out principles for all residential
development, and criteria b) within that policy states that proposals should have no
detrimental impacts upon the character and amenity of the surrounding area (including
open space and designated and locally identified natural environmental and heritage
assets) which cannot be resolved by the imposition of conditions. The Secretary of State
considers that the proposal does have a detrimental impact on heritage assets, and sets
his findings out with regard to this in more detail in the relevant section of this decision
letter.
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with policies for building a
strong, competitive economy
20. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of the
economic impacts of the proposal at IR 444-451. He notes that evidence given at the
inquiry stated that there is over 16,000 sqm of vacant commercial floorspace (IR444),
and that the decline of Anglia Square has continued in recent years, with the closure of
the cinema and the loss of two long-standing businesses (IR444).
21. The application site is currently supporting around 180-230 jobs (IR444), and it is
projected that this would increase to 536-693 jobs once the site is fully operational, and
that it is estimated that the increased vitality of the centre would generate a further 60 –
118 jobs in the local economy (IR445). It is also estimated that construction of the
proposed development would generate 250 – 300 jobs on site, plus a further 275 indirect
jobs (IR445).
22. For the reasons given at IR444-451, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at
IR452 that Anglia Square is not fulfilling its potential to contribute to the local economy,
District Centre (LDC). He notes that, while the proposal would result in some existing
employment being displaced, overall there would be a significant net gain in employment
(IR452). He agrees that the flexibility in relation to permitted uses would help Anglia
Square respond to changes in economic circumstances (IR452). He agrees with the
Inspector that, insofar as the current condition of the site is a barrier to investment, that
barrier would be removed (IR452). For these reasons, the Secretary of State agrees with
the Inspector at IR452 that the proposal would therefore be in accordance with those
policies of the Framework which seek to create a strong, competitive economy, and he
attaches significant weight to these benefits.
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with national and local policies
for ensuring the vitality of town centres
23. Policy JCS19 defines a hierarchy of town centres where the development of new retailing,
services, offices and other town centre uses will be encouraged. Anglia Square/Magdalen
Street is identified as a Large District Centre (LDC) within the second tier. Policy DM18
states that retail, leisure and other town centre uses will be permitted at the defined
centres where their scale is appropriate to the position of a centre in the hierarchy set out
in JCS19 (IR453). Policy DM18 also states that such uses will be permitted where the
proposal would not conflict with the overall sustainable development criteria set out in
policy DM1. Those criteria include that development proposals will be expected to protect
and enhance the physical, environmental and heritage assets of the city and to safeguard
the special visual and environmental qualities of Norwich for all users.
24. The proposal includes 11,000 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace at the ground floors,
with retail uses focused around the reconfigured Anglia Square, and the new St George
Square including leisure uses (IR455).
25. The Secretary of State notes that this represents a reduction in retail floorspace (IR455)
but agrees with the Inspector that this would be offset by improvements to the quality of
that space, linked to the enhanced leisure offer (IR461).
26. For the reasons given at IR453-461, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that
the proposal would be appropriate to the position of Anglia Square in the retail hierarchy
and would support the role that the LDC plays in the hierarchy of centres, promoting its
long term vitality and viability (IR461-462). He therefore agrees with the Inspector that
the proposal would accord with the policies of the Framework relating to the vitality of
town centres (IR462), as well as with policy JCS19 (IR602), and that this benefit should
attract significant weight. However, while he agrees with the Inspector at IR615 that the
proposal, by supporting the role that Anglia Square/Magdalen Street plays in the
hierarchy of centres, and by promoting the long term vitality and viability of the LDC
accords with some elements of policy DM18, the Secretary of State finds that for the
reasons given in paragraphs 28-59 below, the proposal does not protect and enhance
the physical, environmental and heritage assets of the city. Given the importance of the
heritage assets affected and the location of the site within the NCCCA, he concludes
overall that the proposal does not accord with Policy DM18.
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with policies for conserving and
enhancing the historic environment
27. For the reasons given at IR463-465 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions on the significance of the Norwich City Centre Conservation Area (NCCCA).
He has therefore gone on to consider the design of the proposal and its impacts both on
the NCCCA as a whole, and on individual assets.
The design of the proposed development
28. For the reasons given in IR466-467, the Secretary of State agrees with Inspector that the
new streets and squares would create a legible layout and greatly enhance permeability,
and would be a benefit of the design.
29. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment at IR468-
469 of the building typologies proposed, and their height. While he recognises that there
has been an effort to place the taller buildings within the site rather than on the edges,
the Secretary of State considers that the bulk and massing of the built form proposed is
not sympathetic to its context. In particular, he is concerned that the frontage to St
Crispins Road would include 8, 10 and 12 storey buildings, and he finds, like the
Inspector at IR607, that Block F, which would have frontages to Pitt Street and St
Crispins Road, would appear strikingly different and unfamiliar, to an extent that would
cause harm. The Secretary of State also concurs with the advice of Design South East
as quoted in the evidence of Historic England (IR269 and IR474) that:
“with blocks of over 10 storeys, it is only in comparison with the tower that these
could be considered low rise, and in the context of the wider city they are very
prominent. These blocks are not just tall, but also very deep and wide, creating
monoliths that are out of scale with the fine grain of the surrounding historic urban
fabric”
30. In respect of the tower, the Secretary of State recognises that there have been some
amendments made to the proposed tower in terms of number of storeys and a more
slender design. Policy DM3(a) states that proposals in major gateways must respect the
location and context of the gateway. Landmark buildings should be of exceptional quality.
The supporting text to Policy DM3 notes that landmarks can be achieved by design
(rather than height) and that the expectation of the policy is that gateway sites should be
marked by development of exceptionally high quality which relies for its distinctiveness on
design aspects other than size and height. In addition, excessively tall or large buildings
would be inappropriate in most gateway locations.
31. For the reasons given in IR475-478, the Secretary of State agrees with Inspector that in
policy terms there is nothing that expressly supports a tall building at Anglia Square, nor
is there anything that rules it out (IR477). However, for the reasons set out above, he
disagrees with the Inspector, and finds that the tower would be of an excessive size in
relation to its context, and does not demonstrate the exceptional quality required by
Policy DM3(a).
32. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s assessment of the criticisms made
of the design at IR472-474. He agrees with the Inspector at IR472 that the prevailing
scale at the edge of the scheme of 7 to 10 storeys, when combined with the large
footprints of the individual blocks, would be uncharacteristic in the NCCCA (IR474).
While he recognises that there have been attempts to relate the proposal to its context, in
relation to the movement pattern and the creation of new views, in the Secretary of
State’s view these do not outweigh his concerns with regards to the scale, bulk and
massing of the individual blocks and the tower, and the extent to which the height and
mass of the proposal would be uncharacteristic of the NCCCA, as set out above. He
therefore concludes that the proposal fails to comply with policies JCS2 and DM3(c) and
(f).
Impacts on the Norwich City Centre Conservation Area
33. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis of the proposal’s
impact on the site and immediate surroundings with reference to the NCCCA at IR479-
487. For the reasons given at IR479 he agrees with the Inspector that many of the
application site’s current buildings and car parks are identified as negative features in the
NCCCA Appraisal. He accepts in principle that replacement of existing commercial
buildings and car parks with well-designed modern buildings would be a significant
benefit to the NCCCA, and that the benefits of the specific scheme before him would
include greater permeability and legibility, improved streets and squares within the site
and framed views of the Cathedral and the Church of St Augustine (IR480).
34. For the reasons given at IR481-482, The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that the proposal would improve the character and appearance of Magdalen Street north
of the St Crispins Road flyover. However, he finds that the taller elements of Block A
seen from Cowgate would constitute a harmful change in comparison to the current
position. While the Inspector found there would be no harm in this respect, and Historic
England found the impact severely harmful, the Secretary of State considers there would
be moderate harm, and that there would be a discordant relationship created there.
Therefore, while he considers that there is an improvement in the character and
appearance of Magdalen Street north of the St Crispins Road flyover, he considers this
improvement to be moderate rather than significant. For the reasons given at IR483, the
Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would significantly improve the character and
appearance of Edward Street.
35. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis of the proposal’s
impact on the Church of St Augustine and on St Augustines Street (IR484-485). For the
reasons given at IR484, he agrees the proposal would detract from the green space and
the buildings within it, and therefore would result in harm to the character and
appearance of the NCCCA. He also agrees at IR485 that the impact on St Augustines
Street would be harmful to the NCCCA, however, given his findings in paragraph 31 of
this letter in respect of the size of the tower, he disagrees with the Inspector regarding the
level of harm, and finds moderate harm would be caused.
36. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis of the proposal’s
impact along St Crispins Road (IR486-487). He agrees with the Inspector at IR486 that
recladding Gildengate House and replacing Sovereign House have the potential to
improve the NCCCA, subject to reserved matters approvals. He further agrees with the
Inspector that the scale and mass of Block F at this location would appear strikingly
different and unfamiliar, to an extent that would cause harm to the NCCCA (IR487).
37. The Secretary of State has gone on to carefully consider the Inspector’s assessment of
the proposal’s impact on middle distance views at IR488-491. For the reasons given at
IR488, he agrees with the Inspector that, although the site would be visible from parts of
Tombland, this would appear as part of a rich and varied townscape and there would not
be a material impact on the NCCCA. He also agrees that, where the new buildings would
be visible at the junction of Wensum Street and Elm Hill, they would create a new and
uncharacteristic focal point, resulting in harm to the NCCCA (IR488).
38. For the reasons given at IR489, the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that
there would be a broadly neutral effect at Fye Bridge, and for the reasons given at IR490-
491, there would be a neutral effect on the Colegate character area.
39. The six strategic landmarks are all designated heritage assets of high significance in their
own right, and collectively they help to create the skyline which is such an important
feature of the NCCCA. DM Plan Policy DM3(c) seeks to protect long views of the six
strategic landmarks, with a number of specific viewpoints identified (IR492). The
Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of the proposal’s
impact on views from these locations at IR493-494.
40. For the reasons given at IR493, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the
composition of the six strategic landmarks as seen in the view from Mousehold Avenue
would not be harmed by the proposal. Although he has found that the tower would be of
an excessive size in relation to its context, while the proposed tower would break the
skyline when seen from St James’ Hill, the rest of the development would not, and the
Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there would be sufficient separation
from the strategic landmarks to avoid competition with or distraction from those assets
(IR494). The Secretary of State notes that, in the view from Kett’s Heights, the landmarks
appear closely grouped, and the proposed tower would be well over to the right hand
side. He agrees with the Inspector that it would not affect the ability to appreciate the
grouping at this location (IR494). For these reasons, the Secretary of State agrees with
the Inspector that the proposal would not harm the ability to appreciate the NCCCA in
distant views.
Conclusions in relation to the NCCCA
41. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions at IR496-499 that the proposal would result in a net benefit to the character
and appearance of the NCCCA. The Secretary of State, considering the benefits and
harms he has set out above, considers that the scheme would have a broadly neutral
impact on the NCCCA. He agrees that whether considered individually or collectively, the
harms amount to ‘less than substantial harm’, with any harm to the NCCCA being a
matter of considerable importance and weight (IR498).
Impacts on listed buildings and other designated heritage assets
42. There are no designated heritage assets within the application site, no such assets would
be physically affected by the proposal, and in all cases the impacts (or potential impacts)
would be on the setting of the asset in question (IR500).
43. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of the
impacts on listed buildings within the immediate environs of Anglia Square at IR501-506.
He agrees with the Inspector at IR501 that the improvements to the townscape along
Magdalen Street would enhance the setting and significance of 75 Magdalen Street
(Grade-II listed), alongside slight enhancement to Grade-II listed buildings further to the
north on Magdalen Street.
44. He agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR502 that there would be a harm
caused to the Church of St Augustine (Grade-I listed) and the almshouses at Nos 2 – 12
Gildencroft (Grade-II listed). However, he disagrees with the Inspector regarding the
level of harm. Given the height and bulk of the tower and Blocks E and F rising above
the existing roofline of the almshouses, and given the tower would compete with and
distract from an important view of the church tower, the Secretary of State considers that
the harm caused here would be substantial (and in Framework terms, at the upper end of
the ‘less than substantial’ scale). For the reasons given at IR503, he agrees that there
would be minor harm to the Grade-II listed buildings along St Augustines Street.
45. For the reasons given at IR504-505, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that
the proposal would result in no effect on the listed buildings along Sussex Street, 71 New
Botolph Street (Grade-II* listed), and the section of city wall at Magpie Road that is a
scheduled monument. For the reasons given at IR506, the Secretary of State agrees with
the Inspector that there would be a neutral effect on St Saviour’s Church (Grade-II* listed)
and other listed buildings further south along Magdalen Street.
Impact on the Six Strategic Landmarks
46. There are six strategic landmarks set out in the NCCCA:
• the Cathedral,
• the Castle,
• the RC Cathedral,
• the Church of St Peter Mancroft,
• the Church of St Giles, and;
• the City Hall clock tower
47. All of these are Grade-I listed, except for the City Hall clock tower, which is Grade-II*
listed as part of City Hall as a whole. As set out at paragraph 40 of this Decision Letter,
the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would not be harmful in
relation to distant views from high ground to the east, but notes that there are further
views to take into account (IR507).
48. For the reasons given at IR508-509, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that, although the newly created view of the spire from Anglia Square would enhance the
ability to appreciate the Cathedral, there would be minor harm overall to the Cathedral’s
significance due to the effect of the proposal on the view from Castle Meadows.
49. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, while the extent of new
development would be apparent from the Castle, the articulation of the blocks and
variations in height would help to assimilate it (IR511). While the tower would break the
skyline in views of the strategic landmarks from the battlements, the Secretary of State
does not consider it would be harmful, notwithstanding that he has found the tower to be
of excessive size in its context (IR510). For the other reasons set out overall at IR510-
511, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would not cause
harm to the setting or significance of the Castle.
50. For the reasons given at IR512, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the
proposal would not result in harm to the settings of the Castle, the RC Cathedral, the
Church of St Peter Mancroft, the Church of St Giles or City Hall.
Impacts on listed buildings and other designated heritage assets
51. For the reasons set out at IR513-516, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that, while there would be harm to the settings and the significance of the Church of St
Clement, Nos 3 - 5 Colegate and the other listed buildings in the Fye Bridge group, the
degree of harm would be minor in each case (IR516).
52. For the reasons set out at IR517-523, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that, where there would be harm to assets in the Colegate Character Area (IR517,
IR520), it would be only minor in each case.
53. For the reasons set out at IR524, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that
there would be no harm to the settings of the assets along Elm Hill and Princes Street.
54. For the reasons set out at IR525-529, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that there would be minor harm to Nos 45-51 London Street (IR528) St Andrew’s Church
(IR528), and St Helen’s church (IR529).
55. For the reasons set out at IR530-531 the Secretary of State agrees here would not be
any harm to either Waterloo Park or Catton Hall Park.
56. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the impacts on non-
designated heritage assets (IR532-533).
Conclusions on the historic environment
57. For the reasons set out above, the Secretary of State concludes, contrary to the
Inspector at IR535, that while the proposal would have elements of both beneficial and
harmful effects on the character and appearance of the NCCCA, on balance there would
be a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the NCCCA. In addition, there
would be minor benefits to the significance of locally listed buildings on Magdalen Street
(IR538), and minor benefits to the settings of some individual listed buildings (IR543). As
these are all only minor, the Secretary of State considers they attract only limited
additional weight in favour of the proposal.
58. The Secretary of State has concluded that there would be harm at the upper end of less
than substantial to the settings of the two listed assets at IR536, and minor harm to a
larger number (IR537), but that this would be less than substantial in terms of the
Framework in all cases. There would also be a loss of locally listed buildings (IR538), and
the proposal would not integrate with the context and grain of its surroundings in some
important respects (IR540). The Secretary of State considers that these harms would
also be less than substantial in terms of the Framework.
59. The Framework requires any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage
asset (including from development within its setting) to require clear and convincing
justification. It requires that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation; the
more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. In paragraph 41 of this letter,
the Secretary of State found that the harm to the NCCCA would be a matter of
considerable importance and weight. This will be returned to in the Planning Balance
section of this Decision Letter.
Air quality
60. In 2012 the Council declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) covering the
whole of the city centre, including the application site, due to exceedances of the annual
mean objective for NO (IR548). For the reasons given in IR549-559, the Secretary of
2
State agrees with the Inspector that the information before him is sufficient for air quality
to be properly taken into account in this decision (IR559).
61. For the reasons given in IR560-567, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that
the proposal would be appropriate for its location taking account of likely effects on health
and living conditions, and that no conflicts with the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan have
been identified. He further agrees that opportunities to mitigate impacts have been
identified, that the proposal would contribute towards compliance with relevant national
objectives, and that the air quality benefits of providing housing in this accessible site
should be given limited weight (IR566). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that the proposal would accord with the Framework and with DM11 (IR610), and that air
quality is not a matter that weighs against the grant of planning permission (IR567).
Ecology
62. The Secretary of State is the Competent Authority for the purposes of the Conservation
of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and for the reasons set out at IR588 he agrees
with the Inspector that he is required to make an Appropriate Assessment of the
implications of that plan or project on the integrity of any affected European site in view
of each site’s conservation objectives. Those sites are the Broadland Special Protection
Area (SPA), Ramsar site and Special Area for Conservation (SAC), and the River
Wensum SAC.
63. The Secretary of State agrees with the assessment and findings in the Inspector’s
Addendum Report (AR), included at Annex F of the Inspector’s Report. He therefore
adopts the AR as the necessary Appropriate Assessment in his role as the Competent
Authority on this matter, and agrees that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity
of the designated sites.
Other benefits of the Scheme
64. As well as the benefits set out at paragraphs 19, 57 and 61 above, the Secretary of State
agrees with the Inspector at IR544 that there would be other benefits from the proposal,
comprising: securing the regeneration of a strategic brownfield site; a significant net gain
in employment, helping to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand
and adapt, and insofar as the current condition of the site is a barrier to investment, that
barrier would be removed; and supporting the role that Anglia Square plays in the
hierarchy of centres, promoting the long term vitality and viability of the LDC. He agrees
with the Inspector and attaches significant weight to each of these public benefits.
Heritage balance
65. Given his findings on the scale, bulk and massing of the proposal as a whole,
including the proposed tower, and given his findings on the scale of the less than
substantial harm caused to the setting of the church of St Augustine and Nos 2-12
Gildencroft, the Secretary of State has concluded that the impact of the proposal on the
NCCCA as a whole is neutral. He disagrees with the Inspector on the scale of the
heritage benefits of the proposal set out in IR542, specifically the second bullet given his
concerns over the design of the proposal. Taking account of the wider heritage impacts of
the scheme as set out in paragraphs 27 to 59 of this letter, the Secretary of State
disagrees with the Inspector and finds that, while the benefits of the scheme are sufficient
to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the listed buildings identified at IR536-540,
when considered individually, they do not do so when considered collectively, given the
range and number of heritage assets affected, and given the increased harm found in
comparison to the Inspector. He therefore finds, like the Inspector, that the proposals
would conflict with policy DM9. He has also found conflict with elements of policies JCS1
which states that heritage assets, and the wider historic environment will be conserved
and enhanced through the protection of their settings, and conflict with elements of policy
DM1 which states that development proposals will be expected to protect and enhance
the physical, environmental and heritage assets of the city.
66. For the reasons given at IR546, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the
benefits of the scheme are sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to non-
designated heritage assets identified at that paragraph, whether considered individually
or collectively.
Other matters
67. For the reasons given at IR568-572, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
conclusion (IR573) that if planning permission is granted there is a reasonable prospect
that the scheme would be delivered as a whole, and that viability considerations do not
weigh against the proposal.
68. For the reasons given at IR574-582, the Secretary of State agrees that the application
site is well placed to offer a range of modes of transport, the proposal has taken the
opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes, and there would be no severe
impacts on the highway network and no significant impacts on highway safety (IR582).
He agrees with the Inspector that proposal would accord with policies DM31 (IR577) and
DM29 (IR578), and with the policies of the Framework insofar as they seek to promote
sustainable transport (IR582), and that transport considerations do not weigh against the
proposal (IR582).
69. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of the
alternatives presented at the Inquiry (IR583-585). For the reasons given there, he agrees
with the assessment that to do nothing would not offer environmental improvements and
could result in further deterioration in the condition and appearance of Anglia Square
(IR583), that the other options and proposals for the site were not viable or deliverable
(IR583-584), and that the Goldsmiths Street scheme does not offer a precedent or
pattern in terms of the scale or form of development appropriate at Anglia Square
(IR585).
70. For the reasons given at IR586-587, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that
the proposal accords with policy JCS3 concerning meeting energy requirements from
decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources.
71. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s assessment of how the proposals
comply with development plan policies in IR593-IR624. For the reasons given in this
letter, he finds that the proposal does not comply with policies JCS1 and DM1 in relation
to the preservation and enhancement of heritage assets, JCS2, DM2, DM3(a)(c) and (f),
DM9, DM12(b), DM13 and DM18 as it relates to DM1. The Secretary of State agrees
with the Inspector, for the reasons given at IR593-624, that the proposal complies with all
other development plan policies.
Planning conditions
72. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR412-425,
the recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR and the reasons for them, and
to national policy in paragraph 55 of the Framework and the relevant Guidance. He is
satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with the policy tests
set out at paragraph 55 of the Framework. However, he does not consider that the
imposition of these conditions would overcome his reasons for refusing planning
permission.
Planning obligations
73. Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR7-9 and at IR622, the planning
obligation dated 12 March 2020, paragraph 56 of the Framework, the Guidance and the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as amended, the Secretary of State
agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion for the reasons given at IR7-9 and at IR622 that
the obligation complies with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at
paragraph 56 of the Framework. However, the Secretary of State does not consider that
the obligation overcomes his reasons for refusing planning permission.
Planning balance and overall conclusion
74. The Secretary of State recognises that the regeneration of Anglia Square is an important
strategic objective, and he is supportive of the benefits in terms of economic development
and housing that such a regeneration could bring. However, for the reasons given
above, and given the importance of the affected heritage assets and the nature of the
design flaws he has identified, the Secretary of State considers that the application is not
in accordance with Policies JCS1 and DM1 in relation to the preservation and
enhancement of heritage assets nor with DM9. Nor is it in accordance with JCS2 and
DM3(a)(c) and (f) concerning design, DM12(b) in relation to heritage impacts, DM18 as it
relates to DM1, and DM2 and DM13 in relation to residential amenity. The Secretary of
State concludes that the proposal is not in accordance with the development plan overall.
He has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which indicate that
the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.
75. The proposal would secure the regeneration of a strategic brownfield site, make a
significant contribution to meeting housing need in Norwich, make a significant
contribution to meeting the need for affordable housing in Norwich, provide a significant
net gain in employment, helping to create the conditions in which businesses can invest,
expand and adapt, and insofar as the current condition of the site is a barrier to
investment, that barrier would be removed, and support the role that Anglia Square plays
in the hierarchy of centres, promoting the long term vitality and viability of the LDC. Each
of these benefits carry significant weight in favour of the proposal. The proposal has a
neutral impact on the character and appearance of the NCCCA. There would be minor
benefits to the setting of some listed and non-designated assets, which carry limited
weight, as do the air quality benefits identified.
76. Although less-than-substantial in all cases, there would be harm to the setting of a
number of listed buildings, in two cases towards the upper end of the scale. In
accordance with the s.66 duty, the Secretary of State attributes considerable weight to
the harm. In addition, there would be harm to the setting of some non-designated assets,
and a non-designated building would be demolished and lost entirely.
77. The Secretary of State has concluded in paragraphs 62 and 63 of this Decision Letter
that the identified ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the designated
heritage assets identified at IR536-537 is not outweighed by the public benefits of the
proposal.
78. Overall the Secretary of State concludes that the benefits of the scheme are not sufficient
to outbalance the identified ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the
designated heritage assets identified at IR536-537 and in paragraphs 27-59 above. He
considers that the balancing exercise under paragraph 196 of the Framework is therefore
not favourable to the proposal.
79. Overall the Secretary of State considers that the material considerations in this case
indicate a decision in line with the development plan. The Secretary of State therefore
concludes that the application should be refused planning permission.
Formal decision
80. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State disagrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby refuses planning permission for the development
as set out in Annex B of this letter.
81. This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any
enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
Right to challenge the decision
82. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the
Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an
application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for
leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
83. A copy of this letter has been sent to Norwich City Council, and to Historic England, Save
Britain’s Heritage, the Norwich Society and the Norwich Cycling Campaign. Notification
has been sent to others who asked to be informed of the decision.
Yours faithfully
Andrew Lynch
Andrew Lynch
This decision was made by the Secretary of State and signed on his behalf
Annex A – Schedule of representations
Annex B – Full description of development
ANNEX A - SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIONS
General representations
Party Date
Jeremy Brettingham 3 February 2020
George Mahood 11 February 2020
Jennifer Aldous 11 February 2020
Miriam Barnett 13 February 2020
Dr Ksenija Ivir-Ashworth 28 February 2020
Rebecca Rose 3 March 2020
Simon Jervis 29 April 2020
Alex Russell-Davis 31 May 2020
Andrew Boswell 14 September 2020
ANNEX B – FULL DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
Hybrid (part full/part outline) application on site of 4.51 ha for demolition and clearance of all
buildings and structures except Gildengate House and the phased, comprehensive
redevelopment of the site with 7 buildings and refurbished Gildengate House for a maximum
of 1,250 residential dwellings (Use Class C3); 11,350 sqm hotel (Use Class C1); 9,850 sqm
ground floor flexible retail, services, food and drink, office, non-residential institution and
other floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/Sui Generis (bookmakers up to 250 sqm
GIA and public conveniences)); 1,150 sqm ground floor flexible commercial floorspace (Use
Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1), service yards, cycle and refuse stores, plant rooms and other
ancillary space; up to 3,400 sqm cinema (Use Class D2); 1,300 sqm place of worship (Use
Class D1); and multi-storey car park (public element: 600 car spaces, 24 motorcycle
spaces), with associated new and amended means of access, closure of existing means of
access, widening of footways, formation of service/taxi/car club/bus stop laybys and other
associated highway works on all boundaries, maximum of 940 car parking spaces for Use
Classes C1/C3/B1/D1, (of which maximum of 40 spaces for C1/B1/D1), hard and soft
landscaping of public open spaces comprising 2 streets and 2 squares for pedestrians and
cyclists, other landscaping including existing streets surrounding the site, service
infrastructure and other associated work; (all floor areas given as maximum gross external
area except where indicated as GIA);
comprising;
Full planning permission on 1.78 ha of the site for demolition and clearance of all buildings
and structures, erection of 1 and part of a 2nd building for 393 residential dwellings (Use
Class C3) (323 flats in Block A and 70 flats with cycle store in tower within Block E (tower
only, 20 storeys)), and for 4,420 sqm ground floor flexible retail, services, food and drink,
non-residential institution and other floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/Sui Generis
(bookmakers, up to a maximum of 250 sqm GIA within entire scheme, and public
conveniences)), 380 sqm ground floor flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes
A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1), service yard, cycle and refuse stores, plant rooms, other ancillary
space and multi-storey car park (public element: 600 car spaces, 24 motorcycle spaces),
within Block A with associated new and amended means of access, closure of existing
means of access, widening of footways, formation of service/taxi/car club/laybys and other
associated highway works on Edward Street, widened footway, bus stop layby and other
associated highway works on Magdalen Street, 333 covered car parking spaces for Use
Class C3, hard and soft landscaping of public open spaces comprising 2 streets and 2
squares for pedestrians and cyclists, other landscaping, service infrastructure and other
associated works; (all floor areas given as maximum gross external area except where
indicated as GIA);
And
Outline planning permission on 2.73 ha of the site, with all matters reserved, for demolition
and clearance of all buildings and structures except Gildengate House, erection of 4 and part
of 5th buildings (Blocks B and D – H, with Block E to incorporate tower with full planning
permission) and refurbishment and change of use from Use Class B1(a) to C3 of Gildengate
House (Block J), for a maximum of 857 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), 11,350 sqm
hotel (Use Class C1), 5,430 sqm ground floor flexible retail, services, food and drink, office,
non-residential institution and other floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/Sui
Generis (bookmakers, up to a maximum of 250 sqm GIA within entire scheme)), 770 sqm
ground floor flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1), service yard,
cycle and refuse stores, plant rooms and other ancillary space; up to 3,400 sqm cinema (Use
Class D2), with associated means of access, widening of footways, formation of service/taxi
laybys and other associated highway works including shared cycle/pedestrian path on New
Botolph Street, Pitt Street and St Crispins Road, a maximum of 607 car parking spaces for
C1/C3/B1/D1, of which circa 593 covered spaces (with a maximum of 40 for C1/B1/D1), and
circa 14 open spaces for C3 (on west side of Edward Street for Block B), landscaping,
service infrastructure and other associated works; and erection of building for 1,300 sqm
place of worship (Use Class D1) (Block C), on north side of Edward Street with associated
on site car parking and landscaping; (all means of access reserved; all floor areas given as
maximum gross external area except where indicated as GIA).
Report to the Secretary of State for
Housing, Communities and Local
Government
by David Prentis BA BPl MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government
Date June 8th 2020
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
NORWICH CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION BY WESTON HOMES PLC AND OTHERS
REGARDING
ANGLIA SQUARE, NORWICH
Inquiry Opened on 28 January 2020
File Ref: APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
File Ref: APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Anglia Square, Norwich NR3 1DZ
• The application was called in for decision by the Secretary of State by a direction, made
under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on 21 March 2019.
• The application is made by Weston Homes Plc and Columbia Threadneedle B/O Sackville
UK Property Select II (GP) No 3 Limited and Sackville UK Property Select II Nominee (3)
Limited (as trustees for Threadneedle UK Property Select II Sub-Partnership No 3 LP) to
Norwich City Council.
• The application Ref 18/00330/F was originally dated 6 March 2018.
• The development proposed is the comprehensive redevelopment of Anglia Square and
adjacent land on Edward Street for up to 1250 dwellings, hotel, ground floor retail and
commercial floorspace, cinema, multi-storey car parks, place of worship and associated
works to the highway and public realm areas.
Summary of Recommendation: The application be approved
CONTENTS
Page
Preliminary matters 2
The site and surroundings 3
Planning policy 6
The proposal 9
Agreed matters 11
The case for the applicants 12
The case for the local planning authority – Norwich City 35
Council
The case for Historic England (Rule 6 Party) 57
The case for Save Britain’s Heritage (Rule 6 Party) 75
The case for the Norwich Society (Rule 6 Party) 79
The case for Norwich Cycling Campaign (Rule 6 Party) Xx
Other parties who appeared at the Inquiry 89
Written representations 103
Conditions 104
Inspector’s conclusions 108
Recommendation 152
Annex A – Appearances 153
Annex B – Abbreviations used in the report 156
Annex C – Documents 157
Annex D – Description of development 179
Annex E – Schedule of application plans 181
Annex F - Information to inform the Secretary of State’s Xx
Habitats Regulations Assessment
Annex G – Conditions 189
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 1
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1. The Inquiry sat for 15 days between 28 January 2020 and 28 February 2020. By
agreement with the parties, my visits to Anglia Square and various off-site
locations referred to in the evidence were carried out during and after the Inquiry
on an unaccompanied basis. Most of these locations were in the public domain.
On 10 March 2020 I inspected vacant buildings at Anglia Square and saw the
view from the Castle battlements on an access required basis. At each location an
appropriate member of staff, unconnected with the Inquiry, was present to
enable me to gain safe access.
2. The application was initially submitted in March 2018. It was subject to a number
of amendments following submission, including a reduction in the height of the
tallest of the proposed buildings. A revised application form dated 28 August
2018, description of development, plans and supporting information were
subsequently submitted. This material was subject to further consultation prior to
consideration of the application by the Council. The Inquiry proceeded on the
basis of the revised proposals and my assessments and recommendation have
also been prepared on that basis.
3. The description of development set out above is a summary. The application is a
hybrid, in that part of it is submitted as a full application and part in outline. The
full description of development, as amended in August 2018, is at Annex D.
4. On 6 December 2018, the Council's Planning Applications Committee resolved to
grant planning permission, subject to the imposition of planning conditions and
the completion of a section 106 planning obligation. On 21 March 2019 the
Secretary of State confirmed his decision to call in the application. His letter
stated that, in deciding whether to call in this application, the Secretary of State
had considered his policy on calling in planning applications which gives examples
of the types of issues which may lead him to conclude that an application should
be called in.
5. The call in letter sets out the following matters about which the Secretary of
State particularly wishes to be informed for the purposes of his consideration of
the application:
a) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for delivering a sufficient supply of homes (NPPF
Chapter 5);
b) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government's policies for building a strong, competitive economy (NPPF
Chapter 6);
c) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government's policies for ensuring the vitality of town centres (NPPF
Chapter 7);
d) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government's policies for conserving and enhancing the historic
environment (NPPF Chapter 16);
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 2
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
e) the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
development plan for the area including any emerging plan; and
f) any other matter the Inspector considers relevant.
6. At the Inquiry I identified the other matters that I considered to be relevant
under item (f) as follows:
• the effect of the proposal on air quality;
• viability and the prospects for delivery of the scheme as a whole; and
• the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for promoting sustainable transport.
7. A section 106 Agreement between the applicants and the Council was submitted
at the Inquiry. The Agreement was finalised during the course of the Inquiry and
it had not yet been signed. I allowed a further period after the Inquiry for a
signed version to be submitted, on the basis that the text of the Agreement
would be unchanged from that discussed at the Inquiry1. The main provisions of
which may be summarised as follows:
Financial obligations:
• car club contribution;
• green infrastructure contribution to mitigate impacts on European protected
sites (in the event that the project is exempt from Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) by way of Exceptional Circumstances Relief);
• under the flyover contribution (in the event that the applicants do not
themselves carry out works to facilitate meanwhile uses in the area under
the flyover); and
• under the flyover maintenance contribution (in the event that the
applicants do not themselves undertake the maintenance).
8. Non-financial obligations:
• affordable housing – phasing and delivery of 120 units of affordable
housing, of which 85% would be social rented housing and 15% would be
affordable housing for rent or another form of intermediate housing, in
accordance with an affordable housing scheme which is to be approved for
each phase;
• arrangements for reappraising viability at defined stages of the
development, or in the event of substantial delay, with provision for
additional affordable housing if viability has improved over time;
• delivery of works to facilitate meanwhile uses in the area under the flyover,
either in accordance with the scheme which is already approved or an
alternative scheme;
1 PID1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 3
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• provision of discounted commercial units to small and medium enterprises
(SME) currently occupying premises at Anglia Square and/or other SMEs in
accordance with a discounted commercial workspace plan which is to be
approved by the Council;
• employment and skills strategy - measures to optimise local labour supply
and procurement and to offer training;
• measures for supporting existing businesses through the construction
phase, including enabling continued occupation where practicable, ensuring
continued access to their premises and supporting them in finding
alternative premises nearby, in accordance with an Anglia Square
management plan which is to be approved by the Council;
• provision for the design, phased delivery, management, maintenance and
use of the public realm, to include unrestricted use by pedestrians and
cyclists at all times (subject to temporary closures for maintenance works
or other permitted uses), in accordance with a public realm strategy which
is to be approved by the Council; and
• implementation of a sustainable communities plan which is to be approved
by the Council.
9. The Council submitted a CIL Regulations compliance statement2 which sets out
its reasons for concluding that the obligations would accord with Regulation 122
of the CIL Regulations. The Council and the applicants agreed that all of the
obligations would meet the relevant tests. Although the amount of affordable
housing was a controversial matter at the Inquiry, the obligations themselves
were not controversial. I agree that the obligations meet the relevant tests and
I have taken them into account accordingly.
10. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES).
Supplementary environmental information was provided with the scheme
amendments in August 2018. On 17 July 2019 the Planning Inspectorate (on
behalf of the Secretary of State) issued a Regulation 25 notification under the
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations
2017. Although a response was received on 2 October 2019, the Planning
Inspectorate considered that this did not fully address the points raised. An
updated assessment of the likely significant effects resulting from demolition
activities was sought, together with a draft of the Site Waste Management Plan
relied upon in the ES. This information was subsequently provided.
11. I have taken all of the environmental information into consideration in my
assessment and recommendation. I also note that, insofar as part of the scheme
is submitted in outline, any permission could be subject to conditions to ensure
that subsequent details for the outline elements would be within the parameters
that have been assessed in the ES.
12. Historic England, Save Britain’s Heritage, the Norwich Society and the Norwich
Cycling Campaign were given Rule 6 status and were represented at the Inquiry.
2 NCC20
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 4
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
Location and description
13. The site and surroundings are described in the evidence and in the Statement of
Common Ground (SoCG). The site extends to approximately 4.5 hectares. Most
of this is accounted for by the Anglia Square shopping centre and adjoining land
which is enclosed by St Crispins Road, Pitt Street, Edward Street and Magdalen
Street. Two smaller parcels of open land are located to the north of the main site,
adjacent to Edward Street. Anglia Square comprises retail, leisure and office
buildings developed during the 1960s and 1970s following the construction of St
Crispins Road. The shopping centre is arranged around a pedestrian precinct and
includes large format stores together with smaller units occupied by a mix of
national and independent retailers.
14. At the upper levels are Sovereign House and Gildengate House, two substantial
office buildings of 6 - 7 storeys. Neither of these buildings has been used as
offices since the late 1990s. Gildengate House is currently used as temporary
studio space by artists whilst Sovereign House has remained unused. A former
cinema, a nightclub and a large multi-storey car park are also now vacant. Within
the south western part of the main site is Surrey Chapel Free Church and
premises fronting Pitt Street which are occupied by businesses and social
enterprises. The buildings at Nos 43 - 45 Pitt Street are locally listed.
15. To the east, the site is bounded by Magdalen Street. This is an important radial
route leading from the northern suburbs to the city centre, under the St Crispins
Road flyover. The street is fronted by predominantly older two and three storey
buildings with retail uses at ground floor level. There is also a modern four storey
building accommodating a department store, post office and a bar. There are a
number of bus stops on Magdalen Street adjacent to the flyover. The area to the
north of Edward Street includes some larger scale buildings, including four storey
apartment buildings at Dalymond Court and the Epic Studios building.
16. The area to the north west of the site is largely residential, characterised by two-
storey 19th century terraced housing. St Augustines Street is fronted by two and
three storey buildings, many of which have retail or other commercial uses at
ground floor level. Many of the properties in and around St Augustines Street are
statutorily or locally listed. These include the Grade I listed Church of St
Augustine and the Grade II listed residential terrace at Nos 2 -12 Gildencroft. To
the south of Gildencroft is Gildencroft Park, which includes a children’s play area.
The application site is bounded to the south by St Crispins Road, which is
elevated so as to pass over Magdalen Street. The southern side of St Crispins
Road is fronted by larger scale commercial buildings up to 6 storeys in height and
the 19th century almshouses of the Grade II Listed Doughty’s Hospital.
17. The application site is within the Norwich City Centre Conservation Area. There
are several statutorily and locally listed buildings in the vicinity. In addition to the
buildings identified above, the Grade II listed No 75 Magdalen Street is located
opposite the site. There are three further Grade I listed churches nearby, namely
St Saviour’s, St Martin at Oak and St Mary’s Coslany. Heritage assets are
discussed further in the sections on historic environment.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 5
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Planning history
18. The land occupied by Anglia Square was cleared as part of the construction of an
inner ring road in the 1960s. This included the clearance of land to the west of
the shopping centre. Additional phases of development were designed for the
western part of the site but were never built. Much of this land has remained
open and undeveloped and is in use as surface car parking.
19. In October 2009 planning permission was granted for the comprehensive
redevelopment of Anglia Square including 200 residential units and retail uses. A
condition of that permission required off-site highway works to create a gyratory
system at St Augustine’s Road. Those works have been carried out so this
permission has been commenced. However, it has not been implemented further.
20. In March 2013 planning permission was granted for a phased redevelopment. The
first phase was to include an enlarged Anglia Square and a new food store of
7,792 sqm together with car parking, changes to access arrangements, retail and
other town centre uses and residential uses. Planning permissions were
subsequently granted for later phases, including external refurbishment of
Gildengate House, further residential units, retail and town centre uses, and
works to facilitate the development. However, these planning permissions have
now expired.
PLANNING POLICY
21. The development plan comprises the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich
and South Norfolk (March 2011) together with amendments that were adopted in
January 2014 (the JCS); the Norwich Development Management Policies Local
Plan (December 2014) (the DM Plan) and the Norwich Development Site
Allocations Local Plan (December 2014) (the SA Plan)3. The most important
policies of the JCS and the DM Plan are identified below. No party identified any
relevant policies of the SA Plan.
22. The Council has adopted a number of relevant Supplementary Planning
Documents which are listed in the overarching Statement of Common Ground4.
The Greater Norwich Local Plan will plan for development up to 2036. The Council
and the applicant agreed that very limited weight could be attached to this
emerging plan at this stage of its preparation and I share that view.
Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk
23. The Council and the applicants agree that the following are the most important
JCS policies for determining this application. Policy 1 seeks to address climate
change and protect environmental assets, including European designated sites
and the historic environment. Policy 2 promotes high design standards, creating a
strong sense of place and respecting local distinctiveness. Policy 3 seeks to
maximise use of decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources. For
developments of more than 10 dwellings, at least 10% of energy requirements
should be met from such sources.
3 CD2.2, CD2.3 and CD2.4 respectively
4 SoCG1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 6
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
24. Policy 4 seeks the delivery of 33,000 new homes in the Norwich Policy Area
between 2008 and 2026. Proposals should contribute to the creation of mixed
and balanced communities and 33% of the units should be affordable (with 85%
social rented and 15% intermediate tenures), subject to viability considerations.
Policy 5 seeks to develop the local economy to support jobs, including by
increasing the proportion of higher value knowledge economy jobs. Policy 7
states that development should maintain or enhance quality of life and the well-
being of communities, promote equality and diversity and strengthen community
cohesion. Healthier lifestyles are to be promoted by maximising access to walking
and cycling and providing opportunities for social interaction and access to green
spaces.
25. Policy 11 seeks to enhance the regional role of Norwich city centre, which is to be
the main focus for retail, leisure and office development. The northern city centre
is identified as an area for comprehensive regeneration, in accordance with its
Area Action Plan5, to achieve physical and social regeneration, facilitate public
transport corridor enhancements and utilise significant redevelopment
opportunities. Policy 19 states that retailing and other town centre uses will be
encouraged at a scale appropriate to the hierarchy of centres, as defined in the
JCS. Anglia Square/Magdalen Street is placed on the second tier of that hierarchy
(after Norwich city centre) as a large district centre (LDC).
Norwich Development Management Policies Local Plan
26. The Council and the applicants agree that the following are the most important
DM Plan policies for determining this application. Policy DM1 seeks to achieve
sustainable development, including through sustainable economic growth,
protecting environmental assets, combating climate change, maximising well-
being and promoting inclusive and equitable communities. Policy DM2 seeks to
protect the living conditions of existing residents and future occupiers, including
through provision of adequate internal and external space. Policy DM3 sets out
design principles, including protection of long views and local distinctiveness.
Policy DM8 requires residential development to provide informal recreational open
space and children’s play space. Policy DM9 states that development shall
maximise opportunities to preserve, enhance or better reveal the significance of
heritage assets. Locally identified heritage assets should be retained where
practical and viable.
27. Policy DM11 requires that development in an air quality management area should
take particular account of the air quality action plan. Where air quality is poor,
development shall include measures to mitigate the effects of local air quality.
Noise mitigation measures will be required where a development would be a
source of environmental noise or where future occupiers would be adversely
affected by noise. Policy DM12 sets out principles for residential development,
including providing a mix of dwellings (subject to the size and configuration of
the site) and achieving a density in keeping with the existing character and
function of the area. Policy DM13 sets out criteria for the conversion of existing
buildings to flats. Policy DM16 supports employment and business development.
Policy DM17 seeks to retain (in Class B use) premises providing for small and
5 The Area Action Plan has now expired
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 7
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
medium scale businesses, other than in specific circumstances including where
there would be an overriding community benefit from the new use.
28. Policy DM18 promotes retail, leisure and other main town centre uses6 in
specified centres, where their scale is appropriate to the centre’s position in the
hierarchy. Policy DM19 supports development of offices in specified centres,
where their scale is appropriate to the centre’s position in the hierarchy. Policy
DM20 sets out the approach to managing change in defined retail frontages.
Policy DM28 seeks to encourage sustainable transport. It states that cycle and
pedestrian links should be an integral part of the design, accessibility and
permeability for pedestrians should be maximised and provision should be made
for travel planning and car clubs. Policy DM29 sets a limit of 10,000 on the total
number of off-street public car parking spaces in the city centre. It also sets
criteria for new public off-street parking. Policy DM31 sets upper and lower limits
for car parking. Policy DM32 states that residential development must be car free
in specified circumstances, which do not apply to the application site. Car free or
low car housing will be acceptable in other defined locations, which would include
the application site. Policy DM33 sets out criteria for seeking planning obligations
to deliver essential infrastructure.
Other sources of guidance
29. The Norwich City Centre Conservation Area (NCCCA) Appraisal 20077 describes
the features that contribute to the special architectural and historic interest of the
NCCCA. The designated area is large and varied. To assist the detailed appraisal,
13 character areas are identified. For each character area there are descriptions
of important features including important frontages, landmarks and positive and
negative vistas. Measures of management and enhancement are set out for each
character area. At the Inquiry, all parties attached significant weight to the
NCCCA Appraisal as a description of the area and its special interest. I share that
view and have taken it into account accordingly. However, the management and
enhancement measures that it sets out do not have the status of planning policy.
30. The Anglia Square Policy Guidance Note (PGN)8 was published by the Council in
2017. The PGN is clearly stated to be non-statutory guidance. It is intended to be
a material consideration, albeit with less weight than an adopted supplementary
planning document, and I have taken it into account on that basis. The PGN sets
out a vision for a rejuvenated Anglia Square, with a distinctive identity that
complements the neighbouring area and reflects its location in the historic
northern city centre. The development is to have a clear relationship in built form
with the surrounding area. A number of objectives are set out, including
reinvigorating the local economy, revitalising retail and service provision and
providing a significant level of residential development to make effective use of
this city centre location.
6 The policy refers to the definition in the Framework, which includes retail, leisure,
entertainment, cinemas, restaurants, pubs, nightclubs, offices and hotels amongst other uses
7 CD2.10
8 CD2.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 8
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
THE PROPOSAL
31. The application proposes the demolition of the existing buildings and a mixed use
scheme of redevelopment. This would include up to 1,250 dwellings, 70 of which
would be in a 20 storey tower, up to 11,000 sqm of flexible retail/commercial
floorspace, a replacement cinema, a replacement multi-storey car park, a new
facility for Surrey Chapel and a hotel. This is a hybrid planning application. Full
details have been submitted for Block A, public realm works and the tower (which
would be in phase 2). Outline planning permission is sought for the remainder of
the site. A series of parameter plans are submitted for approval, covering matters
such as building heights, land use, access and public realm. As noted above, any
permission could be subject to conditions to ensure (by reference to the
parameter plans) that subsequent details for the outline elements remained
within the parameters that have been assessed in the ES.
32. The detailed element of the planning application seeks full planning permission
for:
• demolition of the multi-storey car park, cinema and associated ground and
first floor elements of this sector of the shopping centre;
• 428 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) in Block A and the tower;
• 4,420 sqm9 of flexible ground floor retail, services, food and drink and non-
residential institutional floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/Sui
Generis (bookmakers and/or nail bars, up to a maximum of 550 sqm
within the entire scheme));
• 380 sqm ground floor flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes
A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1);
• public conveniences with disabled and Changing Places facility;
• multi-storey car park with 600 public parking spaces and 300 residential
spaces, means of access, landscaping, and service infrastructure; and
• public realm works comprising two squares and two streets.
33. Block A would create new street frontages to Edward Street and Magdalen Street.
Phase 1 would include an east/west pedestrian and cycle route across the site
linking Magdalen Street to St Augustine’s Street via the new Anglia Square. There
would also be a north/south pedestrian and cycle route along a new St George
Street, linking Edward Street in the north to the existing St George Street to the
south via a recently constructed pedestrian and cycle crossing on St Crispins
Road.
34. The outline element of the planning application seeks planning permission for:
• a maximum of 822 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), including the
refurbishment and change of use of Gildengate House from office to
residential;
9 Floor areas are Gross External Area unless otherwise stated
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 9
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• at least 120 of the above dwellings would be affordable housing, with a
tenure split of 85% social rented and 15% intermediate tenure;
• a hotel of 11,350 sqm (Use Class C1);
• 5,430 sqm of flexible retail, services, food and drink, office and non-
residential institution floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/Sui
Generis (bookmakers and/or nail bars, up to a maximum of 550 sqm));
• 770 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes
A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1);
• a cinema of 3,400 sqm (Use Class D2);
• a place of worship of 1,300 sqm (Use Class D1); and
• means of access, car parking, landscaping and service infrastructure.
35. The parameter plans10 show 4 storey buildings fronting Magdalen Street,
stepping up to 9 and 11 storeys within the site. Block A would be 7 storeys on
the frontage to Edward Street, stepping up to 9 storeys behind. Block D, fronting
New Botolph Street, would be 4 and 5 storeys. Block E would be 5 storeys on the
frontage facing the junction of Pitt Street and St Augustines Street, stepping up
to 6 and 7 storeys behind and to either side. Block F would have frontages to Pitt
Street and St Crispins Road. It would step up from 9 storeys fronting Pitt Street
to 12 storeys facing the roundabout on St Crispins Road. Block G would be 8 and
10 storeys where it faces St Crispins Road, with varying heights within the site.
The 20 storey tower would be set within the site, more or less at the point where
the line of St Augustines Street would intersect with the new St George Street.
AGREED MATTERS
36. The Council had resolved to grant planning permission, subject to a section 106
Agreement. Consequently, there was broad agreement between the Council and
the applicants across most of the matters that the Secretary of State wishes to
be informed about and also in relation to the further matters identified by me.
Specific points of agreement are set out in the overarching SoCG11. The main
differences between the Council and the applicants related to the degree of harm
or benefit to specific heritage assets. The respective assessments are
summarised in Appendix 4 to the overarching SoCG. However, the Council and
the applicants agreed that, in all cases where there would be harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this would be less than substantial
harm in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
The Council and the applicants also agreed that the harm to designated heritage
assets would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
37. The Council, the applicants and Historic England (HE) agreed a supplementary
SoCG on the significance of the heritage assets affected by the proposal12. This
provides a brief account of the significance of each asset, noting that there is
10 Building heights are shown on A01-PP-100 A (CD7.22)
11 SoCG1
12 SoCG2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 10
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
further information in the evidence. This SoCG does not cover the contribution of
setting to significance, which was a controversial matter between the parties.
38. The Council, the applicants and HE agreed a SoCG on viability matters13 which
set out the extent of agreement/disagreement at the start of the Inquiry on
various inputs to the viability assessments. Following further discussions during
the Inquiry, the parties agreed a viability position statement14 to the effect that
the Secretary of State could proceed on the basis that the viability of the scheme
is marginal. This position reflects the award of Marginal Viability funding of £15
million. It also assumes successful applications for CIL exemptions, which would
be awarded by the Council on a phased basis.
39. Bearing in mind the inherent sensitivity to changes in inputs to viability models,
the parties agreed that the decision maker would not need to consider detailed
evidence on matters such as costs, values and benchmarks. On the basis of that
agreement HE did not call Mr Rhodes (HE’s viability witness) to give oral
evidence, although his written evidence remained before the Inquiry.
40. During the Inquiry the Council, the applicants and Norwich Cycling Campaign
(CYC) agreed a SoCG on air quality15. This indicates a high level of agreement
between the Council and the applicants on air quality matters. Whilst CYC agreed
some matters relating to guidance and objective levels for NO and PM for the
2 2.5,
most part this document served to clarify points of disagreement between the
Council/applicants and CYC.
THE CASE FOR THE APPLICANTS16
Foreword
41. Norwich has as its by-line “A Fine City” and no-one could fail to be impressed by
the range, depth and quality of its architecture and historic environment. At
every corner of the city it is easy to stumble upon one Grade I listed church after
another. These are set in medieval (and earlier) street patterns which are lined
by scores of listed buildings from all stages of the City’s history. Norwich is not a
city preserved at a single stage of its history. Due to its pre-eminent regional
importance to the economy and cultural life of East Anglia, it has never been
frightened of accepting the new. The city has reinvented and renewed itself to
meet the changing spatial needs of the time. On a grand scale, the city reacted
to the consequences of Catholic emancipation by the construction of a second
cathedral high on a hill above its Anglican predecessor. It responded to the needs
of post-war civic reorganisation by the construction of its Nordic City Hall.
42. The commercial boom of the 1890s brought smaller but important interventions,
including the Jarrold department store and the art nouveau shopping centre at
Prince’s Arcade. Each of these interventions has been rooted in a socio-economic
imperative, to meet the spatial requirements of the time.
13 SoCG3
14 ID10
15 ID11
16 The full closing submissions, which are summarised here, are at WH28
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 11
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
43. Not all such interventions have been successful. Anglia Square is a notable
example of failure. However, that is no reason to stop planning for change in the
public interest. To do so would prevent past mistakes from being remedied and
would fail to meet present day needs. The time has come to assist a part of
Norwich that the 20th century left behind.
Something must be done…something can be done
44. The present state of Anglia Square is a poor reflection of the planning system.
The site lies within the defined city centre and should be at the heart of the city’s
strategy for sustainable strategic growth. It is the best placed significant
brownfield site for the delivery of much needed housing. For decades, Anglia
Square has been identified as the most important strategic regeneration site in
Norwich. Its current condition represents a failure of the planning system to
deliver regeneration and repair. This failure has real world consequences:
• The inability to regenerate Anglia Square is harming the image of Norwich
as a modern, economically vibrant city. The evidence of Ms Tilney (the
Council’s economic development officer) was clear and compelling. Ms
Tilney stated that inward investment is being lost as a result of the impact
of Anglia Square. The appearance of the site is both ugly and depressing.
Moreover, it sends out a negative message to potential investors about the
ability of Norwich to deliver beneficial change.
• The site contains a collection of large, poorly designed buildings which are
no longer fit for purpose. They are largely vacant and are becoming
derelict. This is a significant harm that blights the surrounding area. Local
people have done all they can to make the area function in as vibrant a way
as possible. However, Anglia Square is architecturally atrocious and
functionally deficient. This part of Norwich, and its people, deserve better.
• The buildings have been identified as significant detractors from the
Norwich City Centre Conservation Area (NCCCA). Demolition would be a
public benefit by itself.
• The retail and economic function of the site lacks vitality and is failing
quickly.
• Anglia Square is unable to help a catchment population that falls within the
bottom 10% of England’s poorest areas.
• The site is becoming a hotspot for crime. It is uncomfortable and unsafe to
visit after dark.
• Despite being the City’s most sustainable site for new housing, it is making
no contribution to meeting an acute need for housing, including affordable
housing.
45. Anglia Square gives the impression that this is a city which may have different
priorities for different communities. The Council’s own officers are able to
describe the area as forgotten and left behind, even though it is a part of the city
centre. Moreover, the Inquiry heard that they choose to hide it from potential
inward investors by avoiding locations from which it can be seen. Unsurprisingly,
all parties to this Inquiry have accepted that the planning system should remedy
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 12
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
this wholly unacceptable position. Most parties accepted that this will require
substantial redevelopment.
46. However, such redevelopment will not happen by itself. An acceptance that the
planning system must do something is meaningless without a recognition that it
can only deliver the deliverable. Developments which are undeliverable are not
sustainable. So, accepting that redevelopment and regeneration is urgently
necessary, the planning system must search for solutions which are both
sustainable and deliverable. For almost all major developments, the concept of
sustainable development involves a balance between some potentially harmful
effects and the broader public interest in securing necessary development.
47. It is unrealistic to suppose that large scale city centre regeneration will be
completely harm-free. Hence the need for a balanced approach, particularly in
historic cities which also have powerful spatial duties to perform. The Framework
has provided a mechanism by which such impacts fall to be considered. Various
balances appear throughout the Framework. The two most relevant here are the
heritage/public interest balance and the overall planning balance. The Framework
recognises that there are circumstances where some harm to heritage assets
simply cannot be avoided in the overall search for the public interest.
48. If these tests are applied, and a proposed development is found to be justified,
then it will be sustainable development in the terms of the Framework. This was
accepted by Mr Neale, (the heritage witness for HE) in cross-examination. The
Courts have made clear that, where there is the potential for harm to heritage
assets, if the tests in the Framework are applied properly, the decision maker will
also be taken to have applied the necessary legal tests. This includes the
presumptions raised by the statutes referred to in closing by Mr Williams
(Counsel for HE). On this key issue, the test in paragraph 196 of the Framework
is clear, well understood and simple to operate.
49. The development plan has been drafted to be consistent with the Framework. It
is unthinkable that policies which protect Norwich’s heritage step outside the
approach that the Courts have held must be adopted. Thus it is inconceivable
that the development management policies of the plan would drive a different
outcome from those of the Framework.
50. The Council has recognised the validity of these propositions and has provided
cogent, consistent and thorough evidence to this Inquiry. It has:
• recognised the urgent need for the existing deficiencies to be remedied by
regeneration;
• recognised the need for a deliverable solution which will only be achieved
through substantial redevelopment;
• understood that there will need to be a balance between the impacts of
such a substantial redevelopment and the public benefits it would bring;
and
• undertaken that balance in accordance with the Framework.
Moreover, the Council is the only statutory body with the relevant expertise to
have undertaken that balance.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 13
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
51. The Council’s conclusion was that planning permission should be granted. That
conclusion has been scrutinised through the Inquiry process and has been stoutly
defended by a group of very senior Council officers. Of course the Council’s
conclusion is not binding on the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the fact that
the democratically elected body responsible for spatial planning in Norwich has
found that planning permission should be granted must weigh heavily in favour of
the proposals. No other party has carried out this balancing exercise. HE has not
attempted it and Save Britain’s Heritage (SBH) recognises that it does not have
the expertise to undertake the balance in a full and proper way. The Norwich
Society (NS) also carried out a partial balancing exercise.
52. The Council has played a very active role in seeking to ensure that the
regeneration of the area is actually delivered. It has secured Housing
Infrastructure Fund (HIF) funding for the development. The purpose of HIF
funding was to ensure the delivery of housing projects which needed to be
unlocked by the provision of Government monies. The maximum funding
envisaged under the Marginal Viability head was £10 million. Larger awards could
only be granted if the bid was found to be “exceptional” and could demonstrate
“widespread and transformational delivery of new homes”. In fact, this scheme
was awarded £15 million.
53. The HIF award was the subject of intense and detailed scrutiny on behalf of the
Treasury, DHCLG and Homes England. The level of that scrutiny is demonstrated
by the fact that the assessors visited the offices of Weston Homes to better
understand the cost assumptions contained in the bid. This background shows
the care that the Council and Government have taken in relation to the issue of
deliverability. Whilst the HIF award is not determinative of the merits of the
scheme, nor of the Secretary of State’s own conclusions on deliverability, it is a
very material consideration. In short, Government does not award £15 million of
HIF funding without being satisfied that the scheme in question is deliverable.
54. Turning to the other evidence before the Inquiry, it is important to note the
agreed position statement on viability17. No party is now arguing that the
proposals are not viable and would not be delivered as a whole. The evidence of
Mr Truss (the applicants’ viability witness) was that the scheme would deliver a
profit of 16.4% on cost or 14.7% on gross development value. It would also
generate an internal rate of return of 20.2%18. Mr Truss commented that, for a
regeneration scheme of this scale, it is reasonable to assume that, with
successful place-making in the early phases, later phases could achieve a step
change in residential values. His overall assessment was that the scheme is a
credible and deliverable proposition on a difficult site. The landowner has an
incentive to proceed because of the need to reposition the existing shopping
centre which is coming to the end of its economic life.
55. The potential for the scheme to stall part way through the development process
was raised by the Inspector. No doubt this matter was also considered by those
who assessed the HIF bid. In any event, Mr Truss responded to the Inspector’s
question and explained how such a risk would be minimised. Mr Luder (the
17 ID10
18 Section 6 of WH3/1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 14
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
applicants’ planning witness) described how the particular circumstances of the
joint venture between Weston Homes and Columbia Threadneedle Ltd would
reinforce the points made by Mr Truss:
• The high abnormal costs of demolishing the existing structures,
remediation and site preparation would be incurred at the beginning of the
project. This front-loading of major capital expenditure would provide a
powerful incentive to continue, in order to recoup those costs. The
circumstances are quite different to previous schemes where profitable
elements could be delivered early on.
• Unlike retail-led development, the marginal costs of a housing-led
redevelopment reduce as every unit is completed. Thus, most of the profit
would be garnered from the last of the delivered units. Successive phases
of the development would provide a significantly enhanced sense of place,
which would be reflected in sales values.
• The terms of the HIF award are such that it would be repayable if the
specified number of units were not delivered. The requirement to pay back
such a substantial capital sum would be onerous and would create a huge
incentive to complete the project.
• Weston Homes is both a developer and a contractor. It is therefore able to
be more flexible than some other housebuilders in terms of its marginal
returns. It has substantial fixed costs relating to its wider operation which
will be incurred whether or not it is delivering new units. As Mr Truss and
Mr Luder explained, Weston Homes can therefore accept a lower level of
marginal return than other contractors, meaning that remaining on site to
completion is an easier proposition.
• The nature of the joint venture is that Columbia Threadneedle Ltd would, in
effect, surrender the site to the development on the basis that it would get
its asset back post completion. The anticipated internal rate of return on
the project is defined by the understanding that the retail units will be
returned to it as a going concern. In all of these circumstances there is no
easy route out for either of the joint venture partners. Both partners are
incentivised to complete the whole project.
56. The applicant’s viability assessment has been reviewed by the Valuation Office
Agency on behalf of the Council. The valuation of the various components of the
scheme was found to be appropriate. The elemental cost figures presented with
the HIF bid have been used as the base figure. For the purposes of the Inquiry,
this has been tested against the Building Cost Information Service data base. In
most cases that would be sufficient. In this case, the Inquiry had the added
benefit of assessments by Gardiner and Theobold and Homes England. The
overall conclusion is clear. The scheme is marginally viable but, when all of the
circumstances are taken into account, it is deliverable. These circumstances
include a healthy internal rate of return, HIF funding, CIL relief and the
involvement of a joint venture partnership between two of the most active
developers in the UK.
57. The ability to secure the much needed regeneration of Anglia Square has never
been closer at hand. The Council has recognised and acted upon the confluence
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 15
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
of circumstances which make this possible. Over the last 20 years no-one has
come close to establishing even the potential for a deliverable alternative solution
to meeting the urgent planning issues raised at Anglia Square.
58. The Ash Sakula alternative was relied on by HE and SBH as something which
could deliver most of what the Council would seek from the site19. In fact, it is
the best evidence that a significantly lower level of development would not be
deliverable. The Inquiry process established that:
• it is now accepted by HE and SBH that the Ash Sakula alternative is not
viable or deliverable at present20;
• it is now accepted that there is no evidence of market conditions changing
such as to alter this conclusion in a realistic timeframe;
• although HE chose to produce no evidence on this concession, it was made
with the benefit of a qualified RICS valuer as part of the team;
• SBH appear to have been aware of this conclusion;
• there is no contrary evidence to that of Mr Truss to the effect that a
significant reduction in development volume compared with the application
scheme means that (in his professional opinion) he can see no way in
which the alternative would be either viable or deliverable;
• his conclusion is consistent with HE’s acceptance that the application
scheme is marginally viable and requires significant central and local
government assistance to be built;
• the alternative is also unviable in planning terms, reflecting the fact that it
was not discussed with the local planning authority; and
• in closing, SBH forgets that its statement of case and evidence21 proceeded
on the basis that this was a viable alternative and consequently ought to
be given significant weight.
59. By the end of the Inquiry no party was proposing an alternative solution which
could come close to being demonstrably viable or deliverable. Planning works on
the basis of evidence and it is not sufficient to suggest that there might be an
alternative out there. In this case there is no such evidence. Moreover, there is
clear evidence that the proposal is on the margins of viability and that a lower
volume of development is not likely to be viable, now or in the future. This is a
site where the Council has been seeking redevelopment for decades and where
HIF partners have concluded that there is no alternative to the injection of
exceptional amounts of public money.
19 Paragraph 1.19 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
20 Inspector’s note – Mr Neale (for HE) accepted these points in cross examination by Mr
Harris. Mr Forshaw (for SBH) accepted the concessions made by HE and agreed that there
was no contrary evidence to that of Mr Truss
21 Paragraphs 105 to 110 of Mr Forshaw’s proof (SBH1/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 16
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Architectural quality: Why the need for assessment?
60. A thorough understanding of the architectural quality of a proposal is, in almost
all cases, critical to a proper assessment of its impact. Impact is about more than
simple visibility. Particularly in a city centre location, the fact that a building is
visible does not make it harmful. The nature of its effect will depend, in part, on
its quality as a building in context. Every consideration of a large development by
the Secretary of State involves a consideration of the quality of the scheme’s
architecture, having regard to its context. The requirement for an assessment of
architectural quality runs through government policy at all levels.
61. In this case the objectors have not undertaken any coherent, objective
assessment of architectural quality. The written evidence of HE and SBH does not
contain any examination of the detail and quality of the architecture. At the
Inquiry HE commented only on the heatmap element of the design evidence,
together with the general arguments in support of a tall building in this location.
Mr Neale stated in evidence that an assessment of the nature and quality of the
proposed buildings was not necessary because of the development plan position
which (in his view) meant that a tall building was inappropriate in this location.
However, there is no such development plan position because:
• all parties accept that, in policy terms, the application site is capable of
acting as a gateway site;
• there is no development plan policy identifying areas generally (or this
area in particular) as inappropriate for tall buildings; and
• the development plan states that “it is considered that excessively tall or
large buildings would be inappropriate in most gateway locations”
(emphasis added)22.
62. There is nothing in the development plan which rules out an appropriately
designed tall building at Anglia Square. Nor is there anything that justifies failing
to consider architectural quality. Indeed, in relation to gateway markers, the
policy context requires such a consideration.
63. Building for Life (BfL) is a government endorsed industry standard for well-
designed homes which aims to ensure that the assessment of design quality is as
objective as possible. The Council has assessed the proposals by reference to BfL
and the applicants have assisted in this systematic process. The proposal
performs well, as recorded in the evidence of the Council and the overarching
SoCG. The attack on the Council’s approach by NS was poorly aimed, involving a
rewriting of the rules of the assessment. Its criticism of the density of the
scheme, compared with permissible densities in Leeds and London, lacked
cohesion and accuracy. It should be given little weight. What is important is the
quality of the architecture and the nature of the effect of the proposals on
interests of acknowledged importance. These include heritage assets and their
settings.
64. The Council’s officers have concluded that:
22 Paragraph 3.6 of the DM Plan (CD2.3)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 17
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• The proposal would create legible new streets that would (to a significant
degree) reflect and restore historic routes across the site. At present the
site is wholly impermeable. The suggestion in HE’s written evidence that
the existing site is more permeable than that which is proposed was
dropped during evidence in chief.
• There would be good enclosure of surrounding streets and an appropriate
mix of uses with active frontages.
• The massing of the blocks would create a varied form which would add
interest and modulate scale through layering.
• The use of marker buildings at important entrances and the adoption of
mansion block and warehouse typologies would reflect, not ape, its
context.
• The use of different linking blocks to set off the taller tower element would
be appropriate and proportionate.
• The creation of two large and well-proportioned public squares which would
be well landscaped, usable and of high quality would represent high quality
placemaking.
65. The Council has carefully considered the rationale for a taller element at this
location, in the context of the development plan and its aspirations for achieving
redevelopment. The analysis drew on expert knowledge of the site, its constraints
and the needs of the area. It accepted the value of marking a site which
represents the place of people’s arrival in the city centre from the north. The
regeneration case for a tall building as a symbol of renewal was also accepted.
The Council’s careful position on this matter includes the following:
• The Council does not see the existing pattern of Norwich as fixed. This
approach is consistent with the NCCCA Appraisal’s assessment of the need
for radical change in this locality and HE’s advice on the role of tall
buildings which can play an important part in the shape of cities.
• The officers’ report notes that “a strategically positioned tower to the north
of the city would be justified in terms of denoting how the area to the
north of the river is no longer a ‘poor relation’ to the south. There is a need
to address and to heal the demotion of this part of the city centre through
neglect and lack of investment… the construction of a tower that advertises
a focus of activity in this part of the city centre would further encourage
people who do not live in the area to treat Anglia Square as part of the city
centre….”23
• The officers’ report emphasises the fact that “Anglia Square has been
uniquely blighted by the damaging legacy of previous
development…[leading to] a perception amongst many…that this is a place
to be avoided. This site unlike any other is integral to the regeneration of
an entire sector of the city. Development of Anglia Square has the scope to
deliver transformative change and to allow the northern city centre to
23 Paragraph 367 of the officers’ report (CD2.15)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 18
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
contribute and strengthen the wider Norwich city centre economy. A tall
building on this site would recognise this stage in the evolution of the
city.”24 As noted above, achieving transformative change is one of the
criteria for HIF funding.
66. The potential for a tall building to be an important marker of regeneration is not
new and has been accepted by the Secretary of State in a variety of cities across
England. The ability of a tall building on the application site to act as a way-
marker was also accepted by officers as indisputably true. Norwich is
characterised by intricate and varied topography and street patterns, best
understood on foot. A universal element of the experience of the city is that there
is Norwich ‘over the water’ with its own distinctive character. However, the area
beyond the bypass is hidden away, physically and psychologically separated from
the rest of the city centre. Providing this area with its own character and identity
would be an important public benefit.
67. This careful analysis was left unconsidered by HE. It was waved away on the
false premise that the development plan precludes tall buildings in this location.
The officers’ report described the reasoning for locating the tower adjacent to St
George Square as logical and appropriate. No party has argued for an alternative
location within the site for a tall building. The report also considered the way in
which the design of the tower has been given vertical emphasis. The concave
facetted facades were identified as a particularly interesting feature, likely to
have more effect in reality than the visualisations suggest. This would address
the need for the tower to appear sufficiently slender whilst making it different to
those in other cities.
68. Other elements of the design that would emphasise its slenderness and
articulation were described in the evidence of Mr Vaughan (the scheme
architect). These included the use of colour and vertical columns, opening the
corners of the building and the tripartite arrangement of base, middle and top. Mr
Vaughan’s assessment is commended to the Secretary of State. The way in which
these elements would be seen and appreciated at distance is an important part of
the assessment. The photographs help but cannot do justice to what would be
seen in reality. The architectural details of City Hall and the Anglican Cathedral
can be appreciated from elevated vantage points to the east of the city centre.
So too would the details of the proposed tower, which would be seen off to the
right of the main nesting of city landmarks.
69. Dr Miele (the applicants’ heritage witness) undertook an independent and
comprehensive assessment of the tower, of a type that no objector has, by
reference to three city scales:
On the primary scale
• The proportion of the tower and its height give the building a vertical scale,
such that it would be sufficient to mark the location of the new centre,
adding legibility to the city.
24 Paragraph 368 of the officers’ report (CD2.15)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 19
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• The height of the tower is proportionate to the scale of the city as a whole
as perceived in more distant views.
On the secondary scale
• The open quality of the building where it meets the sky is distinctive and
deliberately softens the effect of the top of the building.
• The open corners providing balconies would reduce visual impact and give
direction and orientation to the building.
• The language of vertical piers introduced by the facades would be
secondary to the corner slots and would modulate the scale of the building,
reinforcing verticality.
• The diamond brickwork patterns at the top of the building would add to the
articulation and would be appreciable in longer views, especially from the
south.
• The folded or inflected plan form would be expressed as a vertical and very
noticeable fold in each of the facades.
• All or most (depending on the viewpoint) of these architectural features
would be apparent and readable across those parts of the NCCCA (and
beyond) where the building would be seen.
On the tertiary scale, there are details of quality which are appreciated closer to.
These details would be subject to approval of details.
70. Both Dr Miele and the Council have also carefully considered the rest of the
proposals. The articulation of the buildings and the modelling of the lower blocks
has been undertaken with care and skill. It is consistent with the guidance of the
NCCCA Appraisal which calls for transformational development in respect of
Anglia Square. As noted above, an understanding of architectural quality is
essential to any assessment of impact and to the application of the policies of the
development plan. Such assessments have, rightly, featured largely in decisions
of the Secretary of State. However, no such assessment has been made by any
of the objectors to this application. The dismissive approach of HE to these
matters is particularly unfortunate. In closing for HE the suggestion was made
that Mr Neale had indeed taken account of architectural quality. That submission
was simply not supported by the written or oral evidence of Mr Neale.
71. Overall, the buildings have been very well designed in conjunction with the
Council’s design and conservation team. The design reflects the position of the
site as a new residential quarter, the need to provide sufficient development to
be deliverable and the need to effect the transformation of the area which is
called for by the HIF criteria.
Identifying accurately the impact of the proposal: the need to avoid
hyperbole and exaggeration
72. Closing submissions are not the place to engage with a view by view assessment.
The decision maker will have the relevant images and will be guided by the
Inspector’s report. However, it is appropriate to consider matters of approach.
HE’s written evidence asserts that the proposals would “cause severe harm to the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 20
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
character of the city”. Mr Neale accepted that, on his analysis, the harm would be
“bumping along the bottom of substantial harm on the spectrum of less than
substantial harm”. Others have suggested that what is at stake in this Inquiry is
the very “character of Norwich as an exceptional historic city”. These are
demonstrably overstated positions which, on reflection and having regard to the
legal tests and the evidence, are clearly incorrect and disproportionate.
73. The impact on the NCCCA is discussed below. For now, it is relevant to note that
Dr Miele finds a direct enhancement to the conservation area on the balance of
impacts (close and distant). The issue of whether there could be ‘severe’ harm to
the NCCCA as a whole raises important matters of approach that are relevant to
all the heritage assets in question. It is common ground that the public benefit
needed to outweigh any harm will depend upon the nature and extent of the
harm. The more significant the harm, the more significant will be the public
benefit required. If that were not the case, the balancing exercise would become
relativistic and rootless.
74. Mr Neale accepted that knowing where you sit on the spectrum of less than
substantial harm is important in understanding what type of public benefit might
be sufficient to outweigh such harm. It follows that a qualitatively defensible
approach to weighing harm is needed. Given that this is not a case where HE
suggests that there would be substantial harm, it is important that this
conclusion is not subverted by a hyperbolic characterisation of the actual level of
harm.
75. Large parts of the NCCCA would not be impacted at all by the proposals. This
may be seen from the locations of the agreed viewpoints which show that there
are large parts of the very extensive NCCCA that would be unaffected. Moreover,
Dr Miele produced a zone of visual impact25 which demonstrates that topography
and the street pattern of Norwich are such that the proposal would not be seen at
all from most of the NCCCA. In these circumstances the impact on the asset as a
whole is unlikely to be severe.
76. Of course, impacts that affect only part of a conservation area are still important.
In the right circumstances they might even amount to substantial harm. That
would be a matter of judgement as to what level of significance is harmed or
drained away by the impact of the proposal and what level is retained. It is
accepted as a matter of law by all parties that, for an impact to amount to
substantial harm, then “much if not all of its significance as an asset would need
to be drained away”. In assessing where on the spectrum of less than substantial
harm an impact lies, it is important that the logic of assessing what significance is
lost and what significance is retained is not forgotten.
77. In his written evidence, Mr Neale asserts that less that substantial harm is not a
qualitative concept at all26, rather that it merely distinguishes such harm from
substantial harm. That is not the correct approach. Less than substantial harm is,
of necessity, a wide concept. As discussed above, the nature of the public benefit
necessary to outweigh any less than substantial harm must depend on the
qualitative extent of that harm. In this case, the assessment of harm to the
25 Dr Miele’s Appendix 11 (WH2/3)
26 Paragraph 5.12 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 21
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
NCCCA must entail an examination of any significance lost and also any that is
retained. Once this is done rationally and clearly, in the circumstances of this
case, the characterisation of harm to the NCCCA as severe (or bumping up
against the bottom of substantial harm) is not even close to being made out.
78. The adoption of the correct approach to assessing harm is even more important
when considering impacts on the settings of listed buildings. Much of the
significance of Norwich’s exquisite listed buildings lies in their intrinsic value,
including their fabric, form, function and interiors. In this case there would be no
direct impact upon any listed building of any grade. This wealth of intrinsic
significance, including the qualities which make the fabric of the city special,
would all be preserved.
79. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be listed building impacts, these would
all be setting impacts. Applying the policy and law appropriately, none of the
setting impacts of the proposal can truly be said to be severe. Nor can the
impacts on the NCCCA. The fact that HE and SBH characterise them as such
demonstrates an error of approach which fails to have proper regard to the
nature and extent of the significance which is altered. This has resulted in an
overblown and exaggerated analysis of harm.
The suggestions of substantial harm to the NCCCA
80. Some objectors, including SBH, go further than HE and allege substantial harm.
The closing submissions of Mr Dale-Harris (Counsel for SBH) were surprising in
that they echo submissions that were rejected very recently by the Secretary of
State in the Chiswick Curve case27. In that case the Secretary of State has
carefully considered the distinction between substantial and less than substantial
harm. In the Framework the concept of substantial harm is deliberately twinned
with “or total loss of significance”. The Secretary of State has consistently found
(in line with the High Court in Bedford28) that substantial harm occurs only when
“much if not all of the significance of an asset is drained away” or when the
significance of an asset is “vitiated or very much reduced.” The Court held that
‘substantial’ and ‘serious’ are interchangeable in this context. In this case there is
no impact which comes close to meeting that test.
81. The similarity of approach between HE and SAVE is notable. Great care needs to
be taken with HE’s characterisation of the impact on the significance of Norwich
as a whole, and on several individual heritage assets, as ‘severe’ harm (but less
than substantial or serious). Having recognised that the harms identified could
not be ‘substantial’ in the terms of the Framework, it is not appropriate to put
aside the reasons for this conclusion and then to characterise the nature of less
than substantial harm as ‘severe’.
27 CD12.9
28 CD12.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 22
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Where and when to undertake the heritage balance
82. At the Inquiry HE referred to a recent High Court decision29 which appears to
suggest that, for the statutory duty, the balance should be carried out internally
as part of the assessment of whether an asset is harmed or preserved while for
the Framework, if there is any harm (however minor) the paragraph 196 test
should be applied with the alleged harms being tested against the public benefits
as a whole, including the heritage benefits. Creating a position where there is a
different statutory and policy test does not, on the face of it, appear consistent
with Mordue30. That case indicated that if the decision maker follows the tests in
the Framework then he will have correctly navigated the statutory tests.
83. Whatever the correct approach, it makes no practical difference in a case such as
this where the heritage harms are all less than substantial. If heritage benefits
outweigh heritage harms, then the outcome will be the same whichever path is
followed.
What is a heritage benefit in a conservation area?
84. The proposition that the townscape benefits of the proposal are not to be
regarded as heritage benefits is artificial. The existing buildings are identified in
the NCCCA Appraisal as being negative features. They are harmful to its
character and appearance. Removing them and replacing them with something
that enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area would be a
heritage benefit, just as their existing condition is a heritage harm. The creation
of squares and re-establishing street patterns would be improvements to the
fabric, character and appearance of the NCCCA. These would be both townscape
benefits and heritage benefits.
The wider views of Norwich
85. Turning to the effects on the settings of listed buildings, all parties have adopted
a form of tripartite assessment. These submissions start with the wider views
then consider mid-distance and more local effects.
86. It is common ground that NCCCA contains landmarks which are relevant to
understanding its significance. These landmarks, which are identified in the
development plan, have settings. The nature of the landmarks is that their
settings are extensive, including much of the city. The decision maker has a
statutory duty to have regard to the effect of the proposal on each and all of
these listed buildings and their settings as a whole. This assessment will also be
relevant to a consideration of the effect of the proposal on the conservation area
as a whole. However, not all elements of the setting will be equally important to
the significance of an asset. Moreover, the setting is not itself a heritage asset.
Settings are important insofar as they contribute to the significance of an asset.
87. The previous development plan sought to identify corridors of vision to the
landmarks from particular vantage points. These corridors were to be definitively
identified in a landmark views SPD. Whilst that document was never produced,
29 City and Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHCLG - Waksman J [2019] EWHC 3437, appended to
closing submissions for HE (HE11)
30 CD10.14
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 23
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
DM Plan Policy DM3 requires that proposals pay careful attention to the need to
protect and enhance significant long views of the major landmarks. Specific views
are identified in Appendix 8. These views are directional in their extent, insofar as
the compass of each differs to reflect what is most important to that particular
view. The focus of each view is the nest of significance created by the Roman
Catholic Cathedral, the Anglican Cathedral and the Norman Castle. Within that
nest the significance of other landmarks, including the Church of St Peter
Mancroft and City Hall, can be seen and appreciated.
88. The way in which the development plan identifies significant long views of the
major landmarks excludes Anglia Square. When one visits the vantage points in
question this is wholly understandable. Although the wider city is in view at each
vantage point, the focus of the view, and the repository of most significance, is
the nest of heritage assets described above. Of course, the identification of
significant views does not limit the extent of the decision maker’s consideration.
Nevertheless, it is highly relevant to note that the proposal falls outside the
identified views when examining the proposition that the proposal would have a
‘severe’ impact on this element of the significance of the city. Moreover, in all of
the works of art produced by Mr Neale, the focus of the views is on the main nest
of significance. None of those views shows the site of Anglia Square.
89. In any event, the position of Anglia Square means that the impact of the proposal
on the significance of the city landmarks as experienced from these vantage
points can only ever be limited. This is because Anglia Square is significantly off
to the north of the main nest of significance. The experience of visiting the
relevant vantage points is the only true way of understanding the relationships at
play. However, the larger scale print of the panoramic view31 better reflects the
nature of the visual relationships as seen by the human eye and is very helpful in
this respect. It also demonstrates the way fine architectural details can be
appreciated, even at a distance. Moreover, it shows significant modern
development to the south of the nest of significance described above,
development which has recently been added to by the construction of Pablo
Fanque House32.
90. In all of these circumstances, there would be no harm to the settings of the
landmarks identified in the development plan, as seen in wider views.
The wider pattern of development and the arguments against a tall building north of
the river
91. In its statement of case, HE refers to Norwich as a work of art. The impression is
given that Norwich is a completed canvas which is not to be altered. We are told
that the great landmarks are all buildings which represent church, state or
municipality and that all are to the south of the river. HE mistakenly believed that
this approach is embedded in the development plan. In planning terms this
description is inaccurate. Norwich has long been identified as a focus for
significant growth in the East of England for new homes and jobs, leisure, cultural
and educational development. That growth is to be focussed on the city centre
31 Enlarged print of view 8 panorama (WH21)
32 Inspector’s note – Pablo Fanque House has been recently completed and is not shown in
WH21 which pre-dates its construction
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 24
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
and in particular on its brownfield sites. This means accepting and embracing
significant change in the city.
92. There is nothing in the development plan to suggest that the pattern of the city is
fixed or that a taller building to the north of the river is a concept which would be
profoundly at odds with the character of Norwich as a whole. That is a policy
some might wish to see but it is not one which actually exists. Nor is there any
need for tall buildings to be reserved for ecclesiastical, state or civic uses. That
would be an anachronistic approach in a modern spatial context. Meeting housing
need is the most significant social and spatial imperative of our time and the
Secretary of State, in decision after decision, has accepted that high quality
housing developments can include tall buildings. HE’s suggestion that housing is,
in principle, an inappropriate use for a tall building in Norwich is simply wrong.
93. HE’s approach to these matters is best illustrated by its evidence in relation to
the view from the castle and the view of the Cathedral across playing fields33.
Views from the castle encompass the varied history of a modern, regional
mercantile city. Buildings of all scales and types are present, some break the
skyline and some do not. HE points out, correctly, that most of the tall buildings
are to the south of the River Wensum. However, whilst all post-date the castle,
none are identified as harming its predominance or significance. The application
scheme would be almost a kilometre away. The composition of the view would
remain the same and the extent of the view over the river valley would be
unaltered. Dr Miele is right to say that there would be no interference with the
ability to appreciate the castle’s elevated position and its defensive purpose.
94. Turning to the view from Cathedral Meadow, Dr Miele assesses the harm to the
significance of the Cathedral as being towards the bottom end of less than
substantial harm34, noting that:
• the proposal would sit within the tree canopy line, which has been
designed to frame views of the Cathedral;
• the proposal would be well over a kilometre away;
• the view would be part of a kinetic experience in which the focus of
attention is constantly shifting; and
• the light colouration and form of the proposed tower would assist in
neutralising its impact overall.
95. To conclude on the wider impacts, the proposal would be visible and deliberately
so. It would mark a new and successful residential and district centre to the north
of the river Wensum. In so doing, it would not harm the views identified in the
development plan. Nor would it detract from the ability to appreciate Norwich’s
great landmarks. The proposal would be located well to the north of the city
landmarks in the same way (but with greater separation) that there are taller
buildings to the south of the city centre. It would add incident to the wider view
but would not cause harm. To the extent that there would be some very limited
33 Views 12, 54 and 60 (CD7.81 SEI t)
34 Paragraph 9.75 of Dr Miele’s proof (WH2/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 25
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
harm to kinetic views from Cathedral Meadow, these would fall to be weighed in
the balance with heritage and other benefits.
Effects upon the middle-distance heritage assets
96. All relevant impacts upon the NCCCA and listed buildings must be considered on
their merits. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the NCCCA Appraisal
identifies specific views (both positive and negative) that are important to an
understanding of the significance of the area. DM Plan Policy DM3(b) requires
decision makers to pay careful attention to the need to protect these particular
views. The impact of the proposal on these views is clearly an important material
consideration (among others) when assessing the effects of the proposal.
However, despite the policy requirement to do so, none of the objectors have
done this assessment. Mr Neale does not even mention them. A conclusion of
‘severe harm’ without reference to these views is clearly deficient. The applicants
have shown that, of the many views identified in the NCCCA, only two would be
affected at all35.
97. These closing submissions do not seek to rehearse the evidence in full. They will
however identify what the applicants’ case is and where in the documents the
relevant evidence is to be found. The middle-distance effects can be described by
reference to 4 groups of assets:
Group 1 - Millennium Plain and Market Place
Group 2 - St Andrew’s Hall, Elm Hill and St Peter’s Hungate
Group 3 – Tombland, Wensum Street and Fye Bridge
Group 4 – Colegate
98. Group 1 includes the Guildhall, the Church of St Peter Mancroft and City Hall,
which are amongst the most powerful and iconic listed buildings in the city36.
Their ability to accommodate change is exemplified by the way in which they co-
exist with the Forum development, which is very different in terms of scale,
materiality and use. The proposal would be seen fleetingly and at a distance. It
would not impact upon any of the significant views identified in the NCCCA
Appraisal and/or the development plan. The huge embodied significance in the
assets in this area would be left untouched, as would the greater part of the
setting of each asset. Dr Miele was right to conclude that there would be no
material harm here.
99. Group 2 consists of St Andrew’s Hall, Elm Hill and St Peter’s Hungate37. The
application site presently makes no contribution to the significance of the
relevant assets. The townscape is varied and is not uniformly medieval. There is
a modern student accommodation block within this group of buildings. The
proposal would not impact on any of the significant views identified in the NCCCA
Appraisal and/or the development plan. The alteration to the settings would be
35 The NCCCA Appraisal views and the corresponding TVIA views are shown in WH14
36 Views 11 and 53
37 Views 22 and 55
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 26
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
slight, distant and transient, seen in the backdrop of a strongly defined historic
townscape which is powerful, layered and complex. Dr Miele identified no harm.
100. Group 3 comprises Tombland, Wensum Street and Fye Bridge38. There would be
no inter-visibility between the proposal and Cathedral Close. None of the
significant views identified in the NCCCA Appraisal would be affected. The
setting of the Maid’s Head Hotel is already rich, varied and powerful. There
would be glimpsed and transitory views of the tower from a limited number of
vantage points, all in the context of a busy urban environment. In this context
any harm to the setting of this building would be negligible. Dr Miele identified
harm in relation to Wensum Street and Fye Bridge (as elements within the
NCCCA) and to associated listed buildings. However, he found the harm to be
towards the lower end of less than substantial harm because the intrinsic
significance of the assets would be unharmed, the proposal would be at some
distance and it would be seen as a high quality piece of townscape.
101. Group 4 lies in and around Colegate39. At this distance the ugly existing
buildings at Anglia Square are apparent. Moreover, there are existing large
modern buildings (with consent for extensions) between this group and Anglia
Square which form part of the current character and appearance of the area.
The Council and applicants agree that the settings of the magnificent pair of
listed buildings of the Church of St George and Bacon’s House would be
enhanced. Dr Miele concluded that there would be limited harm to Doughty’s
Hospital, within the category of less than substantial harm40. Any harm in these
locations falls to be weighed against the benefits of the proposal, including
benefits to the NCCCA.
Local impacts
102. The starting point for assessing the local impacts is the unremittingly negative
impact of the existing buildings on the NCCCA and other heritage assets. Their
replacement with buildings of architectural quality would be, in principle, a
significant benefit. The Council and the applicants find that there would be
significant heritage benefits flowing from the development but also some harms
due to its volume and height. Dr Miele finds limited harm to the setting of the
Church of St Augustine and the adjacent almshouses, even after factoring in the
benefit to their settings arising from the removal of Sovereign House41. It is
important to note here that the two dimensional images of the TVIA cannot do
justice to the eventual relationship between the proposal and the almshouses.
The images give the impression that all of the proposed buildings would appear
to sit close behind the almshouses. In fact, as Mr Vaughan explained, the
closest of the proposed buildings would be some 45m away whereas the tallest
of the frontage buildings (appearing at the right hand side of the image) would
be around 170m away. In reality, the experience of distance would be readily
apparent to the observer.
38 Views 23, 25 and 26 and the animation (WH27)
39 Views 36, 37 and 38
40 Paragraph 8.148 to 8.154 of Dr Miele’s proof (WH2/1) and view 44
41 Paragraph 7.62 (and following) of Dr Miele’s proof (WH2/1) and views 32 and 33
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 27
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
103. Dr Miele also identified very limited/negligible harm identified to the ability to
appreciate a partial view of the Cathedral when seen from Aylesham Road42. In
closing, Mr Williams (for HE) referred to Dr Miele accepting harm “even to the
Cathedral”. However, the limited nature and extent of that harm must be
properly borne in mind. Again, it is relevant to note that none of the views
discussed in this section are identified as significant views in the NCCCA
Appraisal.
Overall judgements
104. Dr Miele’s overall judgment on the impact of the proposal is that, on balance,
there would be benefit to the NCCCA as a whole. This is because of the massive
beneficial effect of the proposal in comparison with the awful existing buildings
together with the limited areas of harm elsewhere. Such a benefit should be
given significant importance and weight. He finds limited to moderate harm,
within the category of less than substantial harm, to the settings of listed
buildings as set out above. This is on the basis that there would be no intrinsic
harm to any listed building. Moreover, any impacts on settings would not be on
parts of the settings which are critical to an appreciation of the asset.
105. The Council finds greater harm. This is not surprising because, given the nature
and extent of the assets under consideration, it seems unlikely that the
respective findings would be completely in line. In this case the Council’s
findings of higher levels of harm is actually of assistance to the decision maker.
This is because the Council still found that the harm would be outweighed by
the benefits of the proposal. Moreover, it is important to recall that Mr Webster
(the Council’s heritage witness) frankly observed that his ‘sensitivity to harm
dial’ was set too high. On reflection, in the light of discussion at the Inquiry, he
felt that some of his judgements were overstated43.
106. HE and SBH, on the other hand, have clearly overstated the impacts. They have
made no proper assessment of the architectural quality of the scheme and they
have not had regard to the extent of significance that would be retained by the
heritage assets in question. This is not a case where harm would be substantial
or “bumping along the bottom of substantial” in relation to any heritage asset.
As an example of this overblown approach, Mr Neale asserted that the proposal
would harm “every single medieval church in the City”. The Inspector asked for
clarification of this remarkable claim in the context of the Secretary of State’s
statutory duty. No response was ever forthcoming.
The public benefits of the proposal
107. Where less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets is identified,
such harm (which is to be given considerable weight and importance) falls to be
weighed against the public benefits of the proposal which include heritage and
all other public benefits. HE chose not to engage in the overall balance between
42 View 49
43 Inspector’s note – in answer to my question regarding the level of harm to the Cathedral,
as recorded in the officers’ report, Mr Webster stated that he no longer took such a critical
view, having listened to the arguments put at the Inquiry regarding the degree of significance
that would be retained following an impact on setting.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 28
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
harm and benefit and its limited attempts to challenge the weight given to
various benefits by the local authority were not supported by evidence. In truth,
HE is not in a position to be an objector, or to “recommend that permission is
refused”. It has neither the evidential basis nor the expertise to undertake the
necessary balancing exercise. Whilst SBH sought to engage in the balance, in a
very limited way, they did so from an inexpert and inappropriate position.
108. The Council is the party best placed to identify and weigh the public benefits of
the proposal to its administrative area and its careful and balanced approach is
commended to the Secretary of State. The Council’s conclusions on benefits are
especially pertinent bearing in mind that it identifies a more extensive basket of
harm to be outweighed than the applicants did. In addition to the significant
townscape and heritage benefits (discussed above), the Council has identified
the following key matters:
• The regeneration of a strategically significant site. The council accurately
describes the proposal when it says that it will “enhance the physical
appearance, the retail and leisure function and overall vibrancy of the site,
create a new residential quarter at Anglia Square which will have good
connectivity to the existing surrounding community, and boost the city’s
housing supply and confidence in the northern city centre as a location for
wider re-development” consistent with the ambitions of JCS11.
• The contribution to meeting the housing needs of the city. At the time of
the officers’ report the Council did not have a 5 year land supply. Despite
the calculation of the housing land supply by way of a different
methodology, the actual need for housing in the city is now greater. No
doubt the Secretary of State will give substantial weight to the amount of
housing that would be delivered by this proposal.
• The provision of 120 much needed affordable housing units, which the
council has correctly identified as the minimum number to be provided in
the circumstances of this large scale redevelopment.
• Economic development and support for vitality. There is currently over
16,000 sqm of vacant retail and commercial space at Anglia Square, just
over half of the total space for retail, commercial and town centre uses44.
The proposal would create a vibrant mix of uses and up to 762 new jobs
(in addition to the up to 800 construction jobs). It would support the long
term vitality and viability of the Magdalen Street/Anglia Square district
centre and the role of the northern city centre in meeting the growth
aspirations of the city as a whole.
• The absence of any evidence of any realistic deliverable alternative to the
meeting of these powerful strategic imperatives.
109. Whilst the list of benefits ranges much wider, these 5 very weighty benefits go
to the heart of the role that this important site should play in Norwich. They are
clearly sufficient to outweigh any reasonable assessment of the less than
44 Section 3 of WH6/1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 29
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
substantial harm occasioned by the proposal. Indeed, the weight to be given to
the benefits has increased during the course of the Inquiry:
• the ability of the city to meet its housing land supply position has
significantly reduced in recent months;
• it is now much worse than the position as at the date of the officers’
report, as confirmed in the Council’s closing submissions;
• it is clear from recent decisions that the Secretary of State will now give
very significant weight to the provision of housing and affordable housing,
especially in circumstances where there is evidence of pressing and unmet
need. The profound real world consequences of a failure to meet housing
need include:
households having no settled home, representing a failure of the
o
planning system to meet its most fundamental of duties;
house prices increasing in an unsustainable way;
o
families having to be split up because children cannot afford to live
o
near their parents;
employers being unable to find a local workforce;
o
employees having to travel unsustainable distances for work;
o
• the air quality evidence (discussed below) has disclosed an improved
position in relation to the site and its surroundings compared to that
assessed in the officers’ report; and
• matters relating to permeability and cycle access have all been resolved.
CYC is no longer making any objections on these grounds.
110. In these circumstances the Council’s conclusion that the public benefits
outweigh the identified heritage harms is more than made out. The
requirements of the Framework would be met and the proposal should be
regarded as sustainable development in heritage terms.
Other matters
Affordable housing and housing mix
111. The proposal would provide 10% affordable housing, in accordance with the
Council’s requirement to secure an appropriately mixed and balanced
community. On the basis of national and local policy, which has regard to
viability, the proposal cannot be required to provide more. The viability position
statement agreed with the Council and HE45 underscores this position.
112. The Council’s rebuttal evidence46 shows how the mix proposed (for both market
and affordable housing) best meets the most pressing needs of the city. That
evidence is compelling.
45 ID10
46 NCC1/4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 30
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Air quality
113. This was not one of the matters which the Secretary of State indicated that he
particularly wished to be informed about, notwithstanding his consideration of
the representations made by CYC. This is relevant because Professor Peckham,
one of the authors of the written evidence for CYC, has argued in the Court of
Appeal that the Secretary of State is obliged to call in all planning cases where
there is potential for exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide (NO ) limits identified
2
in the relevant Air Quality Directive. The Courts did not accept Professor
Peckham’s case.
114. The case made against this proposal was based on 3 main propositions. As the
potential for these arguments to fail became clear, new and different arguments
took their place during the Inquiry. These submissions deal first with the case as
originally advanced and then as it evolved, before setting out the applicants’
positive case.
The air quality case for CYC as originally advanced
115. First, it was argued that the Secretary of State is under a duty to ensure
compliance with the national air quality limit values “within the shortest possible
time” and as a result “any development [in the UK] which does not reduce air
pollutants to legal compliance levels….will be found unlawful”. However:
• This proposition is hopelessly incorrect and has already been dismissed by
the Court of Appeal.
• Thus in the case of Shirley47, Professor Peckham argued that, because the
national air quality targets for NO had not been met, there was a duty on
2
the Secretary of State to call in (and to refuse) any application where there
was an issue about compliance with air quality standards.
• The court was clear that this proposition was incorrect. It is a shame that
there is no reference to Shirley in the evidence for CYC.
• The Court held that, where there was a breach of the Directive, the “single
prescribed means of addressing the breach is the preparation of an air
quality plan”. It went on to say that there was nothing in case law that
supported Professor Peckham’s assertion that “land use planning powers
and duties have to be exercised in any particular way - such as by
imposing a moratorium on grants of planning permission for particular
forms of development or for development of a particular scale whose effect
might be to perpetuate or increase exceedances of limit values.”
• The Court went on to explain that, where air quality was an issue, the
appropriate approach was to take it “into account alongside other material
considerations weighing for or against the proposal” in the ordinary way.
116. The failure of this first limb was recognised in the opening statement for CYC
when Dr Boswell (one of CYC’s witnesses on air quality) stated that it was not
47 CD10.24, see in particular paragraph 33
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 31
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
his case that permission could not be granted where there were exceedances
but, rather, that such exceedances ought to be reduced as soon as possible.
117. Second, it was suggested in the statement of case and the original proofs that
the Secretary of State is obliged to ignore potential enhancements in air quality
as a result of regulations and policy during the lifetime of the project. However:
• This second proposition relies on a misunderstanding of the Gladman48
case and is patently incorrect. Again, Professor Peckham was involved.
• The Court of Appeal found that, in the absence of any evidence on the
potential quantum of improvements, the Inspector was entitled to place
little reliance on them. In particular, “He was entitled to rely on the
evidence before him rather than the evidence that might have been
produced but was not”.
• The Court also referred to the fact that there was no evidence before the
Inspector regarding the possible consequences of government policy in
relation to NO concentrations.
2
• The position here is very different. The Government has now issued vehicle
emission regulations and specific evidence-based guidance on fleet
emission factors and likely background concentrations. This guidance is
designed to enable the assessment of the relevant levels in future years.
• The Planning Inspectorate has recently given clear guidance that a failure
to take into account anticipated improvements in air quality when
establishing a future baseline for emissions would now be legally
unsound49.
• This Inquiry has evidence-based guidance on how to approach likely future
background concentrations of NO and particulate matter (PM ). It must
2 10
use this evidence, which establishes that the proposal can proceed
consistent with the relevant air quality policy.
• This Inquiry also has the CURED v3A50 sensitivity test for NO , which was
2
recently described by the Wealden Inspector and Natural England as
appropriately precautionary.
• The use of either of these scientifically credible tools establishes that there
is no air quality reason for withholding permission at this sustainable site.
118. Third, it was argued that planning permission should be refused on air quality
grounds because the existing and predicted levels of NO and other pollutants
2
are such that the site is not appropriate for housing at all51. Dr Mills confirmed
in his evidence in chief that this was his position. He suggested that new
48 CD15.118
49 Inspector’s interim findings on Wealden Local Plan examination (CD10.23)
50 Calculator Using Realistic Emissions for Diesels – an emissions factor calculator issued by
Air Quality Consultants (CD15.27)
51 Paragraph 4 of the proof of Professor Peckham/Dr Mills (the proof was written jointly and
Dr Mills attended the Inquiry to give evidence) (CYC3/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 32
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
housing would be “best placed out in the fields” where it would have a reduced
air quality impact and that the application site could become a park.
119. However, the application site affords a high degree of accessibility to all modes
of travel. It is likely to be the best available brownfield site in the Norwich urban
area in transport and overall sustainability terms. It would be ironic if such a
site were lost to housing development due to an air quality objection driven by
existing vehicle emissions, particularly when one of the key benefits of the
scheme is that it would improve the ability for new residents to make
sustainable transport choices.
120. CYC’s alternative suggestion was that the quantum of development should be
reduced and a 13m grass and woodland border should be provided around the
entire proposal. The status of this suggestion is now unknown52. For the reasons
identified above, such a suggestion would make redevelopment undeliverable.
Use of CURED 3A is reasonable and precautionary
121. Turning to the new points that emerged during the Inquiry, there was an
extraordinary volte face in CYC’s case regarding the use of CURED v3A. The
applicants’ air quality evidence followed guidance from the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) that decision makers should have
regard to Emissions Factor Toolkit (EFT) v9 when identifying the impact of policy
changes on vehicle emissions of NO . CYC accepted that it was right to have
2
regard to such policy changes and argued that, in addition to EFT, it would be
reasonable and precautionary to use CURED v3A as a sensitivity test in this
case. This was the unambiguous position of this Rule 6 Party in its rebuttal proof
of evidence53.
122. The applicants then re-ran the assessment using the CURED v3A toolkit to
provide a sensitivity test, as suggested by CYC. This exercise showed that,
when considered with the most up-to-date measured baseline figures and in line
with policy, the proposal gives rise to no air quality issues54. When this outcome
became known to CYC its previously unambiguous position on the use of CURED
v3A was jettisoned. In closing, CYC now says that the CURED v3A dataset
should not be used at all55. This inability to accept that which was
uncomfortable for its case characterised the air quality element of CYC’s case.
Use of bias factors
123. At the start of the Inquiry CYC was arguing that the Council had inappropriately
used local bias factors when carrying out its duties under the Environment Act.
CYC suggested that the Council should have used the national bias factors.
When it became apparent that using the most up-to-date national figures would
have made no difference to the results, the suggestion was advanced that an
52 Inspector’s note – this suggestion is contained in the summary of the proof. When asked
about it in cross examination by Mr Harris, Dr Mills said that it could be disregarded
53 Inspector’s note – row 36 of the Air Quality Statement of Common Ground (ID11) records
that CYC considered that CURED v3A is a “valuable tool for sensitivity testing” in an AQA. CYC
disagreed that it should be regarded as precautionary.
54 The results are set out in WH20 and WH24
55 Paragraph 73 of the closing submissions (CYC14)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 33
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
adjusted national figure ought to be used. This adjustment was made
unilaterally by Dr Boswell, without reference to DEFRA or the Council. This is a
hopeless approach. The Council is required to use either local or national figures
(and to explain why) as part of its submission to DEFRA. The Council’s Air
Quality Management Area (AQMA) Report was undertaken in accordance with
the regulations and guidance, it has been approved by DEFRA and there has
been no challenge to that approval.
124. If the approach suggested by Dr Boswell in closing were to be adopted, it is
difficult to see how any local air quality authority could make any realistic
assessment of air quality under the present regime. Dr Boswell was asked by
the Inspector how he thought the analysis should be done, given his criticisms
of both local and national data sets. No realistic answer was forthcoming. If Dr
Boswell is right then every single AQMA report submitted to DEFRA in
accordance with the Environment Act would be incorrect and unreliable.
125. In any event, the most up-to-date measured levels of pollutants fall so far
below the limit levels that there is no realistic prospect (having regard either to
CURED v3A or to EFT v9) of even CYC’s typical range of bias factors making any
difference to the conclusions to be reached in the circumstances of this case.
The applicants’ case on air quality
126. Air quality is to be considered on its merits alongside all of the other benefits
and harms of the proposal. That has been confirmed by the Shirley case. The
limit values applicable for NO and PM for planning purposes are clear and well
2 10
understood. CYC may prefer alternative levels but that is not a matter for this
Inquiry. At the time of the officers’ report, it was accepted that there was likely
to be an increase in concentrations of relevant pollutants as a result of the
proposals. In a ‘no policy world’ this would have included modelled exceedances
for NO in some locations, including at Edward Street. At all locations the
2
modelled concentrations of PM fell way below the relevant limit values.
10
127. However, these results were not seen as justifying a refusal of planning
permission when considered in the overall planning balance. Moreover, the
Council’s air quality officer considered that the results at Edward Street were
anomalous. This was because the concentrations modelled there were higher
than some of the highest readings at the city centre bus interchange. An air
quality condition requiring further modelling and mitigation was therefore put in
place.
128. Following the resolution to grant planning permission the application was called
in. Air quality was not identified as a reason for the call in and no further
specific air quality measurements were taken. However, during the course of
the Inquiry, the Council’s latest readings for the AQMA as a whole became
available. These are the fullest and most up-to-date readings before the Inquiry
and should therefore be used. The measured figures for Edward Street are well
below the previously modelled figures and also well below the relevant limits for
NO , confirming that the modelled figures were (as suspected) anomalous.
2
Given that these were measured figures, Dr Boswell’s detailed criticisms of the
model are irrelevant.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 34
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
129. Having regard to the EFT guidance and the Wealden Inspector’s interim
findings, the Council now accepts that the impact of policy on vehicle emissions
must be taken into account. When the up-to-date baseline readings are used
and either the EFT v9 toolkit or the CURED 3A dataset are used, then the
concentrations of both NO and PM fall well below the relevant limit levels at
2 10
all relevant receptors56. Taken together with the fact that development in this
location has the potential to reduce significantly overall vehicle mileage in the
AQMA, then the conclusion that it should be developed as proposed and not left
fallow becomes compelling.
130. The redevelopment of this sustainable urban site should not be halted by air
condition concerns. All air quality matters have been minimised as far as
practical and/or can be dealt with by way of conditions. Rather than being an air
quality problem, this site forms an essential part of the solution to the challenge
of accommodating significant and sustainable growth in housing and jobs in the
city centre.
Overall conclusion
131. The proposal before the Inquiry represents an opportunity for the planning
system to address the dilemma that is Anglia Square and to unlock the potential
of a site which lies at the heart of the spatial strategy for Norwich. That
opportunity must now be taken.
THE CASE FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY - NORWICH CITY
COUNCIL57
Introduction
132. The application was considered with great care in the report of the Head of
Planning Services58 and it was recommended, on balance, that planning
permission should be granted. The Planning Applications Committee resolved to
accept that recommendation on 6 December 2018. It was right to do so. It
remains the Council’s case that the proposal should be permitted. These
submissions deal with the following:
• Background
• The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for conserving and enhancing the historic
environment
• The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for delivering a sufficient supply of homes
• The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for building a strong, competitive economy
• Air quality
56 WH20 and WH24
57 The full closing submissions, which are summarised here, are at NCC/23
58 CD2.15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 35
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• Viability and the prospects for delivery of the scheme as a whole
• The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
development plan for the area
• Overview and conclusions
Background
133. Anglia Square is the most significant development opportunity in the northern
part of the city centre and one of the Council’s most important priorities for
regeneration. Development plan policies have reflected this objective since
2004. Anglia Square is a large and highly prominent brownfield site. It is
probably the most sustainably located development site in Norfolk both as a
destination and a place to live59. Its redevelopment is integral to meeting the
strategic objectives for the northern city centre and the city as a whole.
134. The Council’s vision has not been delivered. The physical condition of Anglia
Square and levels of vacancy have continued to decline and worsen. Although
the shopping centre remains important for the local community, its image is
poor. Out of hours, it is unused, unwelcoming and attracts anti-social behaviour
and heightened levels of crime. It blights this part of the city and undermines
the role and viability of the Anglia Square/Magdalen Street LDC.
135. The Council’s strategic objectives for Anglia Square and JCS Policy 11, which
deals with the city centre, remain sound and consistent with Government policy
in terms of promoting significant growth in sustainable locations and supporting
the economic and social roles that city centres play. Following sustained decline
over the last two decades the need to unlock this site for comprehensive
redevelopment is now more pressing than ever. Continued dereliction is not a
sustainable option and great weight should be attached to delivering the
regeneration objectives for the site. The application proposal would indeed
deliver those objectives.
The extent to which the proposal is consistent with the Government’s
policies for conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Introduction
136. At the Inquiry there was universal agreement that Norwich is one of England’s
great historic cities and a place of exceptional significance60. The desirability of
redeveloping Anglia Square is also common ground. Mr Neale said that Anglia
Square has proved a misconceived venture and has long been seen as having
harmed the character of Norwich. Mr Forshaw (SBH’s heritage witness)
described Anglia Square as sitting like a cuckoo in the nest within this
remarkable medieval city61. Although Mr Forshaw said that Anglia Square has
moderate/high archaeological/historical value, he agreed in cross-examination
that he was not suggesting that this value justified failing to redevelop the site.
59 Paragraph 3.1 of Mr Bentley’s proof (NCC3/1)
60 Paragraph 6.4 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
61 Paragraph 103 of Mr Forshaw’s proof (SBH1/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 36
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
137. The proposal would impact on the significance of NCCCA and other designated
heritage assets and would result in less than substantial harm. The extent and
nature of this impact has been considered in detail in the committee report and
in the evidence. Contrary to the suggestion put in cross-examination of Mr
Webster, the Council has assessed the effects on designated heritage assets in
the light of the relevant statutory duties62. The Council has judged that the
impacts vary in magnitude. In some cases, the impacts relate to assets which
are of the highest national importance. However, in all cases the impacts
amount to less than substantial harm in the terms of the Framework.
138. Overall, the Council’s view is that the level of harm to heritage assets is lower
than that assessed by HE, SBH and NS, although higher than that assessed by
the applicant. Nevertheless, given the designated heritage assets involved,
great weight should be given to conservation of those assets. Paragraph 194 of
the Framework states that harm requires clear and convincing justification.
139. The Council has had regard to the heritage benefits of the scheme, the
circumstances which have resulted in the deterioration of Anglia Square, the
desirability that development should come forward without further delay and the
prospects of an alternative form of development which would avoid or result in
less harm being delivered. Having considered all these factors, the Council
concludes that the harm is justified, albeit that great weight should be attached
to the less than substantial impact of the development on heritage assets.
General approach
Judgements as to the extent of any harm, and in particular whether any harm is
substantial or less than substantial, should be made in accordance with the
Bedford63 case and the Chiswick Curve64 appeal decision. The Inspector in the
Chiswick Curve set out the threshold for substantial harm:
“The High Court in Bedford addressed that question head-on concluding that:
one was looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the
significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or
very much reduced. To put it another way, substantial harm would be caused if:
very much if not all of the significance of the asset was drained away.”
140. The Inspector also gave guidance on setting impacts:
“Having regard to the conclusions in Bedford, notwithstanding questions of
scale, design and prominence, substantial harm could only be caused if the
heritage asset concerned derived most of its significance from its setting. It is
difficult to see how very much if not all of the significance could be drained
away otherwise. One can think of examples such as fortifications, eye-catchers
or follies, or lighthouses, perhaps, where a good deal of the asset’s significance
62 Paragraphs 375, 376, 425 and 587 of the officers’ report (CD2.15). These paragraphs (as
well as the rest of the extensive consideration of design and heritage) show that any
suggestion that the committee was not properly advised is wholly misconceived
63 CD12.10
64 CD12.9, see paragraphs 12.137 and 12.145 of the report and paragraph 25 of the
Secretary of State’s decision
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 37
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
would be contained in its setting. On that basis, the PPG is not wrong, in general
terms.”
141. The Secretary of State accepted this reasoning. Although that decision was later
challenged, the challenge is not in relation to this point. It follows that
substantial harm is a high test, particularly where the impacts are confined to
settings. As the Chiswick Curve Inspector observed, it is hard to see how a
setting impact can cause substantial harm unless the asset concerned derives
most of its significance from its setting. It follows that a judgement about the
extent of harm can be made only in the context of an analysis of the
significance remaining after the impact of the proposal in question. Mr Neale
accepted this point in cross-examination. However, there is no evidence that
either Mr Neale or Mr Forshaw carried out this part of the analysis in relation to
the NCCCA or the relevant designated assets.
142. It was also agreed that the impact of the application proposals in any particular
view must take account of the impact of the existing Anglia Square and the fact
that such impact would be removed. The existing buildings, which would be
removed, form the baseline for any assessment.
Local policy and guidance
143. Although Mr Neale suggested that the scheme had not been produced in
response to the Local Plan65, in fact local policy supports the redevelopment of
Anglia Square, including tall buildings. The Northern City Centre Action Area
Plan allocated the Site for comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment66. That plan
has expired. Nevertheless, JCS Policy 11 promotes comprehensive regeneration
within the northern city centre. The key diagram for the city centre specifically
identifies Anglia Square as an area of change with mixed-use development67.
144. Policy DM3(a) of the DM Plan68 promotes major development at the main
gateways to the city, as shown on the proposals map69. At the Inquiry it was
common ground that the application site is a gateway site in the terms of the
DM Plan. Whilst Mr Neale and Mr Forshaw expressed regret that the site is so
identified, that is what the development plan says. It is clear from Policy DM3(a)
and the explanatory text70 that gateways may be marked by landmark
buildings. These are defined as buildings that stand out from their surroundings.
Mr Neale suggested during cross-examination that the DM Plan has a preference
against tall buildings in this location. That is plainly not the case. Landmarks or
tall buildings are explicitly contemplated so long as they are not “excessively tall
or large”.
145. The NCCCA Appraisal, which is consistent with the DM Plan, contains
management and enhancement principles for Anglia Square71. Principle 1 is that
65 Paragraph 9.69 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
66 Page 67 of CD2.12,
67 Pages 70 and 73 of CD2.2
68 CD2.3
69 CD12.11
70 Paragraph 3.6 of CD2.3
71 Page 48 of CD2.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 38
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
the scale of existing buildings should be respected where the redevelopment
meets existing development along Magdalen Street. However, that does not
require the scale of buildings within the redevelopment to be the same as
buildings along Magdalen Street. Principle 2 says that large scale buildings are
appropriate near the Ring Road. The PGN (adopted in 2017) states that the
rejuvenated Anglia Square should have a distinctive identity. It expressly
contemplates tall buildings72. It is clear that the PGN does not envisage a
redevelopment that would have the same form as the immediate surroundings.
The impact of the proposals – relevance of retained significance
146. The four heritage witnesses at the Inquiry have set out their conclusions and
reasoning in detail. These submissions seek to assist the Secretary of State’s
own judgements on the evidence of the experts and on the overall heritage
impact. As discussed above, a judgement as to the degree of harm can only be
reached once one considers how much of the significance of an asset would be
retained. Mr Webster undertook this exercise, observing that:
“It seems logical to suggest that the conclusion of severe harm to the character
of the entire city could only be reached if a much larger proportion of individual
assets were experiencing major harm. There are large parts of the city centre
conservation area where no view of the development can be obtained and the
setting of heritage assets will be unaffected. This can be seen from the spread
of verified viewpoints in figure 2.”73
When the retained significance of the NCCCA (and individual heritage assets) is
taken into account, it is plain that the degree of harm falls short of substantial
harm.
The need to take account of benefits as well as adverse impacts
147. It is important to take account of any heritage benefits as well as heritage
impacts, whether that is done as an internal balance for each asset (as
Bramshill74 suggests is appropriate in the context of sections 66 and 72 of the
Listed Buildings Act) or as part of the public benefits which are to be balanced
against any heritage harm that has been identified before considering any
benefits under paragraph 196 of the Framework (as Bramshill suggests when
applying Framework policy).
148. The heritage benefits would be substantial. It is common ground that Anglia
Square blights the city. Mr Neale and Mr Forshaw agreed with the view
expressed in the NCCCA Appraisal that Anglia Square is of very poor townscape
quality. It severs the housing areas to the north from the rest of the historic
centre and has a negative impact on the character and appearance of the wider
conservation area75. Mr Webster considered that the removal of the existing
buildings, together with the undeveloped wasteland off Pitt Street, would be a
72 Paragraph 7.91 of CD2.11
73 Paragraph 5.2 of Mr Webster’s proof (NCC2/1)
74 City and Country Bramshill v Secretary of State [2019] EWHC 3437 (Admin), appended to
HE’s closing submissions (HE11)
75 Pages 43 and 44 of CD2.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 39
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
substantial benefit. Mr Neale accepted that the replacement would be a
development of far higher quality76.
149. The scheme would provide new streets and squares with high quality landscape
treatment. Combined with the new residential accommodation, this would
attract people to the area. Mr Neale accepted that the alignment of the new
streets would be close to those which previously existed77. This would increase
permeability and provide a clear relationship with surrounding streets.
150. The proposal would create framed views of St Augustine’s Church and the
Cathedral78, thereby contributing to the ability to experience these heritage
assets. Mr Forshaw contested these benefits, arguing that the Church and
Cathedral can already be seen from within the site. Even so, the present view of
the Church is dominated by ugly buildings and a surface car park. The proposal
would focus the view along an attractive public route. The present view of the
Cathedral is from an unattractive and largely unused upper deck so it is likely to
be appreciated by few. Moreover, the proposal would improve the settings of
the Church and the Gildencroft almshouses by removing Sovereign House, the
multi-story car park and the surface car parks. It would also bring better quality
development to the west side of Magdalen Street, improving the street scene
and the settings of the assets within it79.
151. Neither Mr Neale nor Mr Forshaw took sufficient account of the effect of the
existing buildings on longer views. For example, Anglia Square is very
prominent in the panorama from St James’ Hill (view 8). Any assessment of the
impact of the scheme must take account of whether the proposal would cause
greater harm than the existing buildings. It is not clear that HE or SBH have
done that. For example, Mr Forshaw commented on the effect of the proposal
on views 7, 8 and 10 but made no acknowledgement of the impact of the
existing buildings80.
Views identified in the Local Plan and Conservation Area Appraisal
152. Policy DM3(b) of the DM Plan states that the design of new buildings must pay
careful attention to the need to protect and enhance significant long views of
the major city landmarks that are identified in appendix 8 (of the DM Plan) and
those identified in conservation area appraisals. The appendix 8 views
specifically protect cones of vision of the major landmarks. The proposal would
not impinge on any of those cones of vision and it would remain possible to
appreciate the landmarks.
153. There was agreement between the experts as to the viewpoints that should be
included in the compendium of views. However, few of those are referred to as
positive views in the NCCCA Appraisal81. None of the views referred to in Mr
76 Paragraphs 8.14 and 8.22 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
77 They would also be close to the Anglo Scandinavian street pattern (WH26)
78 Page 53 of Mr Vaughan’s proof (WH1/1)
79 Paragraphs 405 to 408 and 419 to 422 of the officers’ report (CD2.15) and paragraph 3.3
of Mr Webster’s rebuttal (NCC2/4)
80 Page 7 of Mr Forshaw’s proof (SBH1/1)
81 CD2.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 40
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Neale’s section on Anglia Square and its environs82 as experiencing negative
effects is identified as a positive view in the NCCCA Appraisal. In his section on
‘Intimacy of the City’83, none of the views is referred to in the NCCCA Appraisal
as a positive view. Finally, in his section on the ‘Image of the City’ emphasis is
placed on views from the castle ramparts84. However, again, this is not
identified as a positive view in the NCCCA Appraisal.
Norwich is not immutable
154. National policy recognises that the setting of heritage assets can change over
time. HE’s guidance on settings recognises that changes to settings may
enhance significance85. Norwich is bound to change given its role in the
development plan as a regional centre. Norwich has changed throughout its
history. All periods of architecture are represented in the NCCCA, including the
19th century shoe factories north of the Wensum, the 20th century City Hall and
the more recent Forum (by Michael Hopkins, much commended by Mr Neale and
Mr Forshaw) facing St Peter Mancroft.
155. Mr Neale recognised this character of change, producing images of buildings of
more than six storeys within the city. Whilst he said that some of those
buildings affect the City negatively, he accepted that this does not mean that
there must never be anything built in the north of the city which breaks the roof
scape86. Views may reasonably differ on the effects of particular tall buildings.
Pablo Fanque House was permitted following a supportive design review by
Design South East. Mr Webster, in contrast to HE, considers this to be a
successful addition to the skyline of Norwich. There is no policy support for Mr
Neale’s view that any tall buildings should be ecclesiastical or civic in function.
There is no reason why tall buildings (in sustainable locations) should not be
residential and no reason why a tall building should not mark the regeneration
of this part of the city.
Taking account of design
156. An appreciation of the design of the scheme is an important part of any
assessment of its heritage impact. Mr Neale accepted that an understanding of
the design of the proposal was relevant87. HE’s Guidance on Tall Buildings
confirms the importance of design to the acceptability of tall buildings, including
form and massing, proportion and silhouette, facing materials and detailed
surface design88. However, in contrast to Mr Webster89, neither HE nor SBH
made any detailed assessment of design. Mr Webster’s approach, which
assesses the heritage impact in the light of the detailed design, is the correct
82 Paragraphs 8.7 to 8.41 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
83 Paragraphs 8.45 to 8.58 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
84 Paragraph 8.69 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1) and view 12
85 Page 4, CD11.18
86 Mr Neale’s Appendix 4 (HE1/5) and paragraphs 6.77 and 7.20 of his proof (HE1/1)
87 Inspector’s note – asked by Mr Harris whether the quality of design is relevant to the issue
of impact, Mr Neale commented that it can be
88 Paragraph 4.8 and checklist at page 8 of CD11.19
89 Paragraph 371 of the officers’ report (CD2.15)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 41
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
one. Moreover, he said that particular design characteristics of the proposed
tower would be seen over a considerable distance.
The need for a fair and balanced approach
157. The Council commends Mr Webster as a balanced and independent assessor of
the heritage impacts. He was a conspicuously careful and fair witness, prepared
to reconsider his initial conclusions in the light of others’ views. For example, he
said in his rebuttal evidence90 that the impacts on Doughty’s Hospital and St
Augustine’s Church should be amended from negligible to minor harm, having
regard to the evidence of Mr Neale and Mr Forshaw. On the other hand, he said
in oral evidence91 that he felt he had set his ‘control dial’ too sensitively. His
opinion of the impact on various assets was not now quite as critical as
formerly92.
158. The evidence of Mr Forshaw was lacking in balance. He alone asserted that the
effect on the NCCCA would be substantial. Moreover, he identified what he
described as a ‘serious’ impact on individual heritage assets in the vicinity of
Anglia Square. In relation to six of the seven assets, his evidence was seriously
flawed:
• In relation to St Augustine’s Church and Gildencroft, he took no account of
the benefit to the settings of these assets from removing the existing
buildings and car parking at Anglia Square;
• In relation to the churches of St Martin at Oak and St Mary Coslany, he
took no account of the extant planning permissions for redevelopment of
St Mary’s Works and extension of St Crispin’s House, both of which would
mean that the impact of the application proposals would be much reduced;
and
• In relation to St George Colegate and Bacon’s House he said that the new
development would “completely break the spell of being in a medieval city”
whereas modern development is already visible in views north from these
assets93.
159. Mr Webster considered that Mr Neale’s evidence was more balanced than that of
Mr Forshaw. Even so, Mr Neale’s view that every medieval church in Norwich
would be harmed by the proposals, a view not supported by evidence, suggests
that his assessment was not wholly fair94.
Whether there would be a substantial impact
160. No party suggested that there would be substantial harm to any listed building.
Mr Forshaw, alone, contended that there would be substantial harm to the
90 Paragraph 2.6 of NCC2/4
91 In cross-examination by Mr Williams
92 Inspector’s note – Mr Webster made this comment in response to my questions about long
views of the Cathedral
93 Paragraphs 46 to 50 of Mr Forshaw’s proof (SBH1/1), see also WH15 and the animation at
WH27
94 Mr Neale’s Appendix 6 (HE1/7)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 42
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
NCCCA. Applying the proper test, in line with the Chiswick Curve decision, that
is plainly wrong. The correct approach requires an examination of the heritage
interest retained as well as consideration of what is lost. Mr Forshaw relied on
the Smithfield appeal decision. In that case replacement of the General Market
Hall with a large block of offices and the addition of a tall office block on the
Annex Market was held to cause substantial harm to the significance of the
Smithfield Conservation Area as a whole. However, these buildings were part of
the Western Market Buildings, of which the Inspector said:
“This outstanding group of market buildings is of central importance to the
distinctive character and appearance of the Smithfield CA, and as its most
significant defining characteristic, makes a vital contribution to the significance
of the CA as a whole.”95
161. In the Smithfield case the harm arose from fundamental physical change to a
set of buildings which was the most significant defining characteristic of the
conservation area. The facts here are far removed from the circumstances in
the Smithfield case. The contention that there would be substantial harm to the
NCCCA from the present proposal is untenable.
The extent to which the proposal is consistent with the Government’s
policies for delivering a sufficient supply of homes
162. It is a core objective of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of
homes. There is a great need for housing in Norwich. The proposal represents
the most significant housing project within the city that is capable of being
delivered over the next decade. It has the scope to deliver two years of
Norwich’s housing needs, significantly boosting the supply of homes.
Furthermore, it would make a significant contribution to meeting identified local
housing need in terms of size, type and tenure. Although the amount of
affordable housing would be below the policy target, the 102 social rented
properties and 18 intermediate homes would nevertheless make a very
substantial contribution to addressing housing need in this part of the city.
163. Paragraph 117 of the Framework states that planning decisions should promote
the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses and that
as much use as possible should be made of previously-developed land.
Paragraph 118 states that planning decisions should give substantial weight to
the value of using brownfield land within settlements for homes to meet
identified needs. Anglia Square is the highest profile brownfield site in the city
centre. The proposal would unlock this under-used site and focus residential
development in an accessible location which offers a genuine choice of transport
modes, consistent with paragraph 103 of the Framework.
164. Until the introduction of the standard method of calculating housing need, the 5
year supply was measured in relation to the Norwich Policy Area96 (NPA), which
is the area of the county centred on and strongly influenced by Norwich. Since
the introduction of the standard method, supply has to be calculated by
reference to whole districts. The three Greater Norwich districts (Norwich,
95 Paragraphs 408 and 433 of the Inspector’s report (CD12.6)
96 The NPA is defined in the glossary at appendix 9 of the JCS (CD2.1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 43
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Broadland and South Norfolk) calculate the 5 year supply by reference to the
Greater Norwich area, which comprises those three districts. Greater Norwich
meets the 5 year supply requirement, with 5.89 years.
165. However, there is a substantial shortfall in supply in the urban area centred on
Norwich. Norwich itself has just over 4 years’ supply97. If supply is calculated in
relation to the JCS housing requirement the NPA has 3.36 years98. There has
been historic under-delivery against the targets set out in the JCS99. Housing
need remains high and the proposed scheme would make a major contribution
to meeting the housing needs of Norwich and the surrounding urban area.
Housing mix
166. The most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)100 shows that
about 36% of the predicted need for market and affordable housing (over
15,000 dwellings) is for one and two-bedroom flats. The housing mix proposed
is mainly one and two-bedroom flats, with nine three-bedroom houses. There is
therefore a significant need for housing of the type and size proposed and the
development is capable of meeting a substantial part of this identified need.
Moreover, 10% would be built to meet 2015 Building Regulations M4(2) for
accessible and adaptable dwellings.
167. Dr Boswell argued that the scheme would not contribute sufficiently to
affordable housing needs101. However:
• It is clear from the viability evidence that the scheme is only marginally
viable and the maximum reasonable affordable housing would be provided.
• Contrary to Dr Boswell’s assertion, the scheme is likely to deliver
affordable housing sooner than 2024. The section 106 Agreement provides
that no more than 200 units in Block A could be occupied until Block D has
been completed and transferred to a Registered Provider102.
• Dr Boswell argued that the affordable housing should contain a higher
proportion of two-bedroom units. Mr Turnbull (the Council’s interim
housing manager) showed that demand for two-bedroom flats is very low
and the greatest need is for one-bedroom flats103.
• Dr Boswell contended that houses, not flats, should be provided. Mr Parkin
explained that, within the Anglia Square LDC, commercial uses need to be
provided at ground floor level. It is not therefore possible for the scheme
to focus on provision of houses.
168. Overall, the delivery of housing would positively support the objectives of the
development plan and the Framework. Great weight should be given to the
97 Pages 9 and 12 of the latest annual monitoring report (NCC15)
98 As set out in NCC16, this represents a worsening of the position since the officers’ report,
when the supply in the NPA was reported as 4.61 years (paragraph 192 of CD2.15)
99 Paragraph 9.5 of Mr Parkin’s proof (NCC1/1)
100 Figure 83, CD2.21
101 NGP1
102 Schedule 2 of the s106 Agreement (PID1)
103 Paragraph 23 of Mr Turnbull’s statement, at appendix 1 to Mr Parkin’s rebuttal (NCC1/4)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 44
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
scheme’s contribution to boosting the supply of homes in Norwich. Significant
weight should be given to the provision of homes of a size, type and tenure
which would meet locally identified housing need, make effective use of a
brownfield site and enable major residential development to be focused in a
highly sustainable site.
The extent to which the proposal is consistent with the Government’s
policies for building a strong, competitive economy
169. The proposal would bring significant direct economic benefits together with
indirect benefits through boosting the attractiveness of the city to inward
investment, thereby stimulating wider changes. As it stands, Anglia Square
detracts from the image of the city. Ms Tilney (the Council’s economic
development manager) said that she had never encountered anyone with
anything positive to say about the site in its current state. The vitality of Anglia
Square centre has also declined. In the early 1980s around 2,400 people
worked for HMSO at Sovereign House. Gildengate House was also fully
occupied. The proposal would enable new and existing businesses to invest,
expand and adapt to economic change104.
170. This is the largest development proposal in the city centre since the Chapelfield
shopping centre, which opened in 2005. The investment of £270 million would
enhance the retail and leisure functions of Anglia Square and the vitality and
viability of the LDS as a whole, boost confidence in the northern city centre and
help to reduce levels of deprivation in this part of Norwich.
171. There would be around 250 - 300 people directly employed during the
construction phase plus a further 275 indirect jobs. Moreover, the job density on
the site would be permanently increased. It is predicted that 536 - 693 full time
and part time jobs could be created with a further 60 - 118 jobs generated by
the increased vitality of the centre, a substantial increase on the present level of
employment105. The section 106 Agreement would secure a local employment
strategy creating the conditions for local people and businesses to benefit from
the redevelopment106. Moreover, an estimated £40 million annual expenditure
by over 1200 new households should also be taken into account.
172. The proposal would be a catalyst for further investment. By contrast, the
existing semi-derelict empty buildings and undeveloped brownfield sites send a
message of neglect and underinvestment107. Some objectors suggest that the
proposal would harm the image of Norwich. It is a matter of subjective
judgement whether or not the City would be improved. However, the poor
condition of the existing site is beyond argument. Moreover, the proposal would
bring clear benefits in terms of employment and vitality, providing homes where
highly skilled workers will want to live.
173. The proposal would support the economic objectives of the development plan
and the Framework. Great weight should be attached to the fact that it would
104 Paragraphs 3.4, 3.6 and 5.4 of Ms Tilney’s proof (NCC4/1)
105 Paragraphs 5.4 to 5.6 of Ms Tilney’s proof (NCC4/1)
106 Schedule 7 of the Agreement (PID1), see also support for existing tenants in schedule 8
107 Paragraph 6.1 of Ms Tilney’s proof (NCC4/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 45
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
deliver permanent economic growth within the northern city centre regeneration
area and across Norwich as a whole. Significant weight should be attached to
the contribution it would make to addressing deprivation in this part of the city.
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for ensuring the vitality of town centres
174. Anglia Square is located both within Norwich city centre108 and within the Anglia
Square/Magdalen Street LDC. However, it is outdated and has limited capacity
to serve the LDC function. Mr Parkin explained that, whilst it performs a local
function, an LDC should serve a wider catchment. The recent Greater Norwich
Employment, Town Centre and Retail Study109 found that the centre is
aesthetically unpleasing with poor anchor stores. The study recommended that
the Council should promote redevelopment incorporating retail floor space with
a mixture of sizes, including larger units to enable national retailers currently
located in the centre to remain, together with a new cinema.
175. The proposal would address these deficiencies. The mix of premises for
shopping, leisure, hotel and office uses would create substantial new job
opportunities. Together with the new residential neighbourhood, this would
support the long-term viability and vitality of the LDC and enable this part of
Norwich to contribute to the city’s regional role. The proposed planning
conditions would limit the total quantum of commercial floor space, limit the
amount of floor space available for the sale of comparison goods, provide
suitable premises for existing and future SMEs and bring qualitative
improvement to the convenience goods retail offer.
176. The conditions suggested on behalf of Chapelfield shopping centre and Castle
Quarter110 are unnecessary because the scheme would not compete against the
main city centre. It would not be reasonable to limit the range of commercial
occupiers, or to restrict the ability to merge and sub-divide units, because this
would reduce the ability of the LDC to respond to changing market forces.
Moreover, the suggested conditions would restrict town centre uses that are
supported in policy terms and prevent relocation within the scheme of some
tenants already present at Anglia Square.
177. Significant weight should be attached to the benefit of the proposal in positively
supporting the long-term vitality and viability of the LDC.
Air quality
178. Having carefully considered this matter, the Council has concluded that any
concerns over air quality would be addressed by measures to minimise and
mitigate the impacts. National and local policy strongly supports the
redevelopment of this sustainable city centre site. Any such redevelopment
108 Policy 11 of the JCS
109 CD2.9, quoted at paragraph 10.8 of Mr Parkin’s proof (NCC1/1)
110 CD21.1 and CD22.19 respectively
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 46
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
would result in a degree of impact on air quality. In this case the impacts have
been minimised to an acceptable level.
The law
179. There is no moratorium on development where air pollution levels in an area are
higher than limit values. In Shirley111 the Court of Appeal decided that where
levels of pollutants in ambient air exceed limit values, the only obligation is to
produce an Air Quality Plan. Article 23 of the Air Quality Directive provides:
“1. Where, in given zones or agglomerations, the levels of pollutants in ambient
air exceed any limit value or target value, plus any relevant margin of tolerance
in each case, Member States shall ensure that air quality plans are established
for those zones and agglomerations in order to achieve the related limit value or
target value specified in Annexes X1 and XIV.
In the event of exceedances of those limit values for which the attainment
deadline is already expired, the air quality plans shall set out appropriate
measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible. The
air quality plans may additionally include specific measures aiming at the
protection of sensitive population groups, including children…”
180. Article 23 is transposed into UK law by Article 26 of the Air Quality Standards
Regulations 2010112, which provides that the Air Quality Plan must:
“include measures intended to ensure compliance with any relevant limit value
within the shortest possible time….”
181. The Court in Shirley held that where there is a breach of limit values:
“[32] The preparation of an air quality plan is the single prescribed means of
addressing the breach….
[33] This does not mean that Member States may not also adopt other
measures to address a breach of [limit values], in addition to preparing and
putting into effect an air quality plan complying with article 23. But nor does it
mean that Member States are compelled by any provision of the Air Quality
Directive to do that. A demonstrable breach of [limit values] does not generate
some unspecified obligation beyond the preparation and implementation of an
air quality plan that complies with article 23. The case law does not suggest, for
example, that in such circumstances a Member State must ensure that land use
planning powers and duties are exercised in a particular way, such as imposing
a moratorium on grants of planning permission for particular forms of
development, or for development of a particular scale, whose effect might be to
perpetuate or increase exceedances of limit values, or by ensuring that
decisions on such proposals are taken only at ministerial level.”
182. The Court went on to say:
“[48] This is not to deny that the likely effects of a proposed development on air
quality are material considerations in the making of the decision on the
111 CD10.24
112 SI 2010/1001
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 47
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
application for planning permission, to be taken into account alongside other
material considerations weighing for or against the proposal….”
183. Contrary to the case put by CYC, Gladman113 does not affect the ruling in
Shirley even though it was decided a few months later. This is because Gladman
related to an appeal decision made in 2016, before there was a national Air
Quality Plan or any known measures for improving air quality. In Gladman the
Court found that the Inspector:
“[39] had to form his own judgement on these questions without knowing what
measures the Government’s new national air quality plan would contain -
where, for example, clean air zones would be introduced - or when compliance
with limit values would be secured. Nor did he know how measures taken at the
national level would translate into local measures….
[40] In the circumstances he cannot be criticized for not speculating about
unknown measures to improve air quality at either national or local level, or for
not venturing an opinion on any improvement in local air quality. He was
entitled to rely, as he did, on the evidence before him, rather than the evidence
that might have been produced but was not….
[41] It was not within the Inspector’s duty as decision maker to resolve the
‘tension’….between the Government’s responsibility as decision maker to comply
swiftly with the limit values for air pollutants and the remaining uncertainty over
the means by which, and when, the relevant targets would be met….”
184. Gladman established only that the decision maker could not be faulted for
deciding not to speculate on the possible effects of a National Air Quality Plan
and other measures to control air pollution. The situation at this Inquiry is
entirely different because there is now a National Air Quality Plan114, there is
also a plan for Norwich115, the Government has introduced restrictions relating
to the vehicle fleet and there is guidance on emission factors116.
185. Dr Boswell argued that planning permission could not be granted in an AQMA
unless there was clear evidence that legal levels of air quality would be
delivered117. Dr Mills stated that, as the proposed development would be in an
existing AQMA, it is imperative that it makes no addition to current pollution
levels118. Neither proposition has any foundation in law or policy. Shirley
establishes that, where air pollution breaches limit values, the only duty is to
produce an Air Quality Plan. There is no duty to refuse planning permission
unless legal levels of air quality will be delivered with a particular development.
Air quality is but one of the material considerations which the decision maker
must take into account119. The Institute of Air Quality Management advises that:
113 Gladman Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2019] EWCA Civ 1543, appendix 3 to Dr Boswell’s
proof (CYC1/3)
114 CD15.28
115 CD15.105
116 WH23
117 Paragraph 31 of opening for CYC (CYC10) and row 33 of SoCG on air quality (ID11)
118 Paragraph 37 of Peckham/Mills proof (CYC3/1)
119 Paragraph 48 of Shirley (CD10.24)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 48
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
“The presence of an AQMA should not halt all development, but where
development is permitted, the planning system should ensure that any impacts
are minimised as far as practicable.”120
The relevance of limit values
186. CYC argued that there is no safe limit for NO or particulates. Dr Mills referred
2
to a report of the Royal College of Physicians121 and suggested that a safe level
for NO could be 5 micrograms/m3. However, there is a need for development
2
and the Government has set limit values for pollutants in paragraph 181 of the
Framework. These are the limits which are to be used for planning purposes. In
setting them, the Government would have been aware of the research referred
to by CYC. Moreover, the limit values are kept under review. The recently
published Clean Air Strategy 2019122 sets an aspiration to reduce the number of
people experiencing PM levels greater 10 micrograms/m3 by 50%. However, it
2.5
does not set new limit values, either for particulates or for NO . The application
2
should be assessed by reference to the current limit values.
The application site is the most sustainable location
187. Norwich needs development, including a significant amount of new housing. If a
substantial part of that need cannot be met within the city then these homes
are likely to be built on less sustainable sites in the Greater Norwich area. There
was no challenge to the Council’s evidence that this is the most sustainable
major development site in the City123. Its location on the fringe of the city
centre enables high levels of accessibility by all modes of travel and its
proximity to facilities and transport hubs creates the very best conditions for
promoting sustainable travel behaviour.
188. Locating development on highly sustainable brownfield sites such as this
minimises vehicle emissions because it reduces the need to travel by car. Future
residents of Anglia Square would be less likely to use their cars for work,
shopping and other trips because public transport is excellent and facilities are
available nearby. Existing residents in the surrounding area would have a better
range of shops and other facilities within walking distance. However, CYC’s case
on air quality took no account of the need for development or the sustainability
of this location. Dr Mills suggested that the site would be better developed as a
park124 and that, if development was needed, it should be located away from
the urban area. If that approach were adopted the result would be more vehicle
emissions and more air pollution, not less.
189. Planning policy prioritises development in sustainable urban locations,
particularly on brownfield sites. Locations such as this are likely to experience
greater levels of air pollution than green field sites out of town. That is
inevitable and is not a reason to reverse the policy presumption in favour of
120 Paragraph 8.3 of Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning for Air Quality
(CD15.108)
121 Every Breath We Take (CD15.11)
122 CD15.28
123 Paragraph 485 of the officers’ report (CD2.15)
124 Paragraph 41 of Peckham/Mills rebuttal (CYC3/4)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 49
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
developing sustainable urban sites. The issue here is whether, having regard to
the existing urban context, there is any air quality reason to refuse permission.
No such reason exists.
Taking account of the impact of Government policy on emission factors
190. In the officers’ report, future air quality was assessed without taking account of
potential reductions in vehicle emissions associated with changes in engine and
fuel technology125. It is now clear that this approach is too conservative. CYC
accepted that the assessment with the development in place should take
account of future reductions in accordance with Government policy. The
Government has stated that EFT is a tool which allows emissions for a particular
year to be calculated126. This amounts to a clear Government policy that
anticipated reductions in emissions should, indeed, be taken into account.
191. It is therefore unsurprising that the Inspector examining the Wealden Local Plan
concluded that it would be unreasonable and lacking in scientific credibility to
assume no improvements over time. The Inspector referred to reservations
about EFT v9 and commended use of CURED v3A as being conservative and
consistent with the precautionary principle established in relation to Habitats
Regulations Assessment127. (In this case there is no statutory requirement to
take a precautionary approach). Moreover, Dr Mills himself suggested using
CURED v3A as a sensitivity test128. On any reasonable view, it is appropriate to
predict air quality with the development in place using CURED v3A. Dr Boswell’s
criticism of CURED v3A was not credible.
The results of the assessment of NO
2
192. The evidence of Ms Hobson shows the impacts of the proposal129. The
assessments take account of monitoring data from 2017 (provided by the
applicant) and 2018 (provided by the Council), as used in versions 2 and 3 of
the air quality assessment, as well as the Council’s full year’s monitoring for
2019130. There was no suggestion of exceedances of NO limit values in relation
2
to any of the first floor residential accommodation within the scheme.
193. The only ground floor residential accommodation in the scheme would be in
Block B, which corresponds to receptor location H (Edward Street). The
assessment examined NO levels at that location and also at existing housing at
2
Edward Street and Dalymond Court. CURED v3A modelling based on the 2018
and 2019 monitoring shows NO well below the limit value of 40 micrograms/m3
2
at all these locations131. Only the modelling based on the 2017 monitoring
suggests levels in any location higher than the limit value.
125 Paragraphs 509 to 525 (CD2.15)
126 Emissions Factor Toolkit v9 (WH23)
127 Paragraphs 7 and 8 of CD10.23
128 Paragraph 21 and 22 of Peckham/Mills rebuttal (CYC3/4)
129 WH20 and WH24
130 Appended to the Air Quality SoCG (ID11)
131 The same outcome is reached when Edward Street is assumed to be a canyon, although
Ms Hobson stated that this assumption makes a difference of only 0.1 microgram/m3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 50
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
194. The 2017 monitoring at Edward Street was carried out for only three months
(contrary to guidance in TG16132) and is therefore less reliable than the
Council’s 2019 monitoring which was for 12 months. This showed an annual
mean NO level of 26 micrograms/m3, confirming the view of Ms Oldfield (the
2
Council’s Public Protection Officer) that the 2017 results were not
representative133. Overall, the assessments show that air quality in Edward
Street, at receptors within the scheme and at existing residential
accommodation, would be well within the limit values and entirely acceptable.
195. The 2017 monitoring showed a high result at a location in Magdalen Street134.
However, that result was also unrepresentative. The monitoring location was at
the kerbside, in front of a bus stop where bus movements may be expected to
create a hotspot. The 2019 monitoring at various locations on Magdalen
Street135 shows all results below the limit value of 40 micrograms/m3. The
assessments also considered the effect on ground floor residential
accommodation in St Augustines Street. There is no cause for concern here.
With the development in place, the CURED v3A modelling shows NO levels well
2
below the limit value, whether based on 2018 or 2019 monitoring data.
Bias factors
196. The Council’s 2019 Air Quality Annual Status Report136 applied a local bias factor
(as opposed to the national bias factor) to the 2018 monitoring data. This
approach was criticised by CYC. Dr Boswell submitted a note on the topic, to
which the applicants and the Council have submitted a joint response137. In
summary, use of a local bias factor was appropriate because of good correlation
between diffusion tube results and the Lakenfield chemiluminescent analyser
(which is part of DEFRA’s Automatic Urban and Rural Network) and because
there was only a limited number of results within the national database.
Moreover, DEFRA has approved the Annual Status Report and must therefore
have been satisfied with the use of a local bias factor.
197. In any event, even if the national bias factor of 0.89 had been used (rather than
the local bias factor of 0.86 applied by the Council), it would have changed the
results by only 3%, which would make no material difference. Dr Boswell
suggested that a higher “national” bias factor should be derived by excluding
from the national database results from Redcar and Cleveland. This would be a
misuse of the national dataset which is published by DEFRA with the intention
that it be used in a consistent way.
Particulate matter
198. All projections show levels of PM and PM well below the current Government
10 2.5
target levels. The 2019 Annual Status Report results for Lakenfield and Castle
132 Paragraph 7.123 (CD11.37)
133 Paragraph 3.4 of Ms Oldfield’s rebuttal (NCC6/4)
134 70 micrograms/m3 at monitoring location H
135 Results for DT6 at table 3 on page 9 of Air Quality Assessment v3 (location shown on the
plan at page 14) (WH8/3); the Council’s 2019 monitoring at points DT2 and DT3, shown in
the table appended to the Air Quality SoCG (ID11)
136 CD15.126
137 CYC11 and ID17 respectively
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 51
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Meadow (which has the worst air quality in the city) show PM levels no higher
2.5
than the World Health Organisation limit of 10 micrograms/m3. As Ms Oldfield
said, these results are encouraging for Norwich.
Conclusion on air quality
199. Overall, the evidence shows clearly that planning permission for the proposed
development should not be refused because of air quality concerns.
Viability
200. It is now agreed between the valuers advising the applicant, the Council and HE
that the scheme is viable, albeit marginally so138. The Council has carefully
considered viability throughout the planning process, with input from Mr
Williams (Head of Viability at the Valuation Office Agency). At the time the
Council considered the application Mr Williams thought that the scheme would
be viable and deliverable. Having reviewed the updated valuation evidence from
the applicant, and the evidence of HE, he remains of that view.
201. Following a review of costs and values by Deloitte, on behalf of Homes England,
the Government has decided to make an exceptionally high HIF grant of £15
million. Mr Luder described the detailed level of scrutiny exercised by Deloitte.
The outcome of the HIF process supports the conclusion that the scheme is
deliverable. Although this is dependent on relief from CIL, the Council has a
policy for granting relief in exceptional circumstances139. Mr Truss explained that
putting such a policy in place was a condition of the HIF grant. Given the
Council’s support for the scheme, there must be a good prospect of CIL relief
being granted. Overall, the Council remains of the view that the proposal is both
viable and deliverable.
The prospects for completion of the scheme as a whole
202. There is every reason to think that the scheme would be completed as a whole,
for the following reasons:
• Planning Practice Guidance refers to an appropriate return being in the
range 15 to 20%. The return of 15% anticipated here is within that range.
• The internal rate of return would be 20%, which is also healthy. Mr Truss
said that this return could only be achieved if the project is completed.
• The greatest costs, including demolition of the car park and Sovereign
House, relocation of Surrey Chapel, works to Pitt Street, archaeology and
decontamination, would be incurred early in the development process.
These works would be supported by HIF funding.
• Thereafter (as all three valuers agreed) the scheme would be largely de-
risked, such that the profit would arise particularly in later stages of the
scheme.
138 ID10
139 CD2.16
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 52
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• Removal of the existing car parking early on would increase the value of
the car parking to be provided within the scheme itself.
• The phasing would militate against the project stalling. Blocks E and F
would be of high value to the developer, because no demolition is required.
• The contract governing the HIF funding140 provides that the funds could be
clawed back if the development is not completed.
• Weston Homes is a vertically integrated company, acting as developer and
contractor. The commitment of significant staff resources to the project
would incentivise Weston Homes to continue selling homes and to
complete the project.
• The landowner, Columbia Threadneedle, is participating with Weston
Homes in a joint venture, with both organisations taking a long-term view.
203. In summary, the Council is satisfied that there is a good prospect that the
scheme would be completed as a whole.
The extent to which the development is consistent with the development
plan for the area
Strategic regeneration
204. Securing redevelopment of Anglia Square is a long held strategic objective.
Policy 11 of the JCS establishes the regeneration of the northern city centre,
including Anglia Square, as a planning policy objective. The site is highly
constrained and supports an operational shopping centre. The costs of
developing this site are exceptionally high, the time-lag between costs being
incurred and new development being sold is considerable and current values are
low. Consequently, viability constraints are such that any regeneration of the
site will require compromises to be made.
205. Nevertheless, the Council considers that delivery of the proposal would
positively support the objectives of JCS Policies 4 (housing delivery), 5 (the
economy), 7 (supporting communities) and 11 (Norwich city centre). It would
also support DM Plan Policies DM1 (achieving sustainable development), DM12
(ensuring well-planned housing), DM16 (supporting the needs of business),
DM18 (promoting and supporting centres) and DM28 (encouraging sustainable
travel). The proposal is viable and would enable the strategic regeneration
objectives for the site to be achieved. Great positive weight should be attached
to this factor.
Sustainability
206. The application site is the most sustainable development site in Norwich.
Development plan policies relating to sustainability include JCS Polices 1 and 3
and DM Plan Policies DM1, DM3, DM6, DM7, DM8 and DM28. New residents
would have direct access to shops, cafes and other services within Anglia
Square. They would be able to walk easily into the city centre. Cycle networks
and bus routes passing along Magdalen Street would benefit residents, shoppers
140 NCC18
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 53
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
and visitors. This location provides the very best opportunities for reducing the
overall need to travel and reducing dependency on private cars141.
207. The amount of residential parking proposed (0.75 spaces per unit) is within the
range contemplated by policy. There is provision for a review of parking after
the first phase, so that there is no overprovision in the later stages. The new
600 space public car park would be a reduction in the current total of 1,192,
albeit that spaces in the multi-storey car park are now closed. The proposal
would increase the usable provision on the site by about 100 spaces. This would
not take the overall public car parking in the city centre over the l0,000 limit set
by Policy DM29 because temporary planning permissions for alternative parking
would expire before that limit is reached142.
208. Measures to promote sustainable travel would include 3m pedestrian/cycleways
along Edward Street and Pitt Street, residential and commercial travel plans,
cycle parking, the provision of car club vehicles and electric vehicle charging
points. The energy strategy includes the provision of heat pumps to meet 18%
of the energy for the whole development, exceeding the requirements of JCS
Policy 3. The Addendum to the Energy Statement143 indicates that it would be
feasible to use communal air source heat pumps for the flats, rather than gas
boilers.
209. A substantial level of tree planting is proposed within and around the scheme,
which would enhance the streetscape and assist in mitigating air pollution. The
landscape strategy includes podium gardens and extensive green roof provision.
This would result in a substantial ecological enhancement of a site which is
currently devoid of green areas, consistent with DM Plan Policy DM6. Significant
weight should be attached to the sustainability benefits of focusing mixed-use
development in this location and minor weight to the environmental benefits of
the proposed landscape strategy.
210. Policy DM1 is an overarching policy which seeks to achieve sustainable
development. One of its objectives is to protect and enhance heritage assets.
However, although heritage harm has been identified, it does not follow that
there would necessarily be conflict with DM1 overall. Having regard to all the
objectives of the policy, Mr Parkin (the Council’s planning witness) concluded
that there would be no conflict with DM1 or with the development plan as a
whole. In any event, even if there were a conflict with the development plan by
reason of heritage harm, the public benefits of the scheme would still have to be
weighed against such harm pursuant to paragraph 196 of the Framework.
Healthy, safe and inclusive communities
211. Development plan policies promote healthy and safe communities, seeking to
maximise opportunities for improved health and well-being and to safeguard the
interests of the elderly and vulnerable groups. The proposal would create well
used streets and public spaces which would discourage crime and antisocial
141 Paragraph 485 of the officers’ report (CD2.15); paragraph 3.1 of Mr Bentley’s proof
(NCC3/1)
142 Paragraphs 5.7 to 5.10 and 5.13 of Mr Bentley’s proof (NCC3/1)
143 Appendix 3, WH4/3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 54
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
behaviour. The public realm and communal gardens would be accessible spaces
for sitting, socialising and play. The proposal includes new homes (including
affordable homes), a replacement chapel, new shops and leisure facilities, public
toilets and a Changing Places facility. Provision would be made for mobility
scooters. Taken together, these measures would be beneficial to health, well-
being and inclusivity. Significant weight should be attached to the creation of a
healthy, inclusive and safe place in accordance with JCS Policy 7 and DM Plan
Policies DM1, DM2 and DM3.
212. A Building for Life assessment has identified substantial strengths of the design.
The proposal would replace negative features with a new neighbourhood with its
own distinct character. It would create a bold, modern, high density and
unashamedly urban mixed-use quarter for Norwich. Public spaces would be
animated by public activities, creating connections for pedestrians and cyclists
and opening up the site144. The tower would give further distinction, symbolising
the regeneration of this part of the city. Moderate weight should be given to the
benefits of the design approach and its impact on its surroundings.
Policy relating to preservation of heritage assets
213. JCS Policy 2 and DM Plan Policy DM9 deal with the preservation of heritage
assets. Policy DM9 states that development:
“shall maximise opportunities to preserve, enhance or better reveal the
significance of designated heritage assets and that of any other heritage assets”
214. Policy DM3(a) allows for development of tall buildings at gateways but the DM
Plan emphasises the need for sensitivity and the need to avoid “excessively tall
buildings.” Mr Webster145 agreed that he had identified harm to views from the
approach to the city along St Augustines Street. Policy DM3(b) requires the
design of new buildings to pay careful attention to the need to protect and
enhance the long views identified at appendix 8 and DM3(c) requires respect for
character and local distinctiveness. Mr Webster agreed there was tension in
relation to those policies. In relation to DM3(b) he commented that, although
the proposals would provide a degree of distraction from the views at appendix
8, in some ways they would enrich those views. In relation to DM3(c) he
emphasised the efforts the applicants had made to integrate the development
within its surroundings. He said that as much as possible had been done having
regard to the need to produce a viable scheme.
215. Mr Webster also agreed that there would be some conflict with the guidance in
the NCCCA Appraisal146, although he drew attention to the benefits of removing
the existing buildings, reinstating the historic street pattern and providing views
of the Church of St Augustine and the Cathedral. Overall, whilst there would be
some heritage benefits, these would be considerably outweighed by the less
than substantial harm to heritage assets. Policy DM9 allows for harm to the
significance of heritage assets but makes clear (in relation to designated assets)
144 Illustrated by images at NCC14
145 Inspector’s note – these points were agreed by Mr Webster in answer to questions from Mr
Williams
146 CD2.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 55
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
that this should be in “exceptional” circumstances. The Council considers that
the justification for the scheme meets this test. Nevertheless, it is accepted that
great weight should be attached to the harm identified, in accordance with
national policy.
Conclusions on the development plan
216. In summary, the proposal is broadly consistent with the development plan.
Where conflict arises there are material considerations of sufficient weight to
justify granting planning permission.
Overview and conclusion
217. This is the most sustainable development site in Norwich, capable of making a
great contribution to meeting housing needs. As part of an LDC, it should also
be meeting the retail and service needs of a wider catchment. At present it is
not fulfilling any of these roles. Moreover, it is unsightly and its semi-derelict
appearance can only worsen over time. The proposal would regenerate the site
with a scheme of architectural distinction, contribute to meeting housing needs
and enhance its retail role.
218. There is no reasonable prospect of any alternative scheme being practicable. Mr
Neale accepted that the Ash Sakula proposals are not viable147 and that there is
no reason to think that the position will change. The choice is, therefore, to
permit the proposal or contemplate the continuation of the existing situation
with the prospect of further decline. The Council’s view is that continuance of
the present situation is not tolerable and the merits of the proposal before the
Inquiry are sufficient to justify the grant of planning permission.
219. Anglia Square has detracted from the NCCCA for far too long. Attempts to
secure redevelopment have failed over the past 20 years. The HIF funding that
has been agreed comes from a fund that is now closed and is not transferable to
other projects. There is now a real opportunity to regenerate the site through a
joint venture between the landowner and a developer, with support from the
Council. That opportunity should be taken.
220. In conclusion, the proposal would deliver great economic, social and
environmental benefits, meeting all of the Government’s sustainability
objectives. Of course, the Council recognises that Norwich has a remarkable
historic centre and that great weight should be given to the conservation of the
historic environment. However, the benefits of the scheme are, cumulatively,
sufficient to outweigh the harm to the historic environment and planning
permission should therefore be granted.
THE CASE FOR HISTORIC ENGLAND (RULE 6 PARTY)148
Introduction
221. HE attended the Inquiry to inform the Secretary of State of its views on the
extent to which the proposed development is consistent with national and local
147 Paragraph 10.13 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
148 This is a summary of the closing submissions which are at HE11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 56
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
policy on conserving and enhancing the historic environment. HE’s duties
include securing the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings
and promoting the preservation and enhancement of the character and
appearance of conservation areas. It is the Government’s principal adviser on
the historic environment. Evidence on behalf of HE was given by Mr Neale (Head
of Development Advice for HE).
Statutory duties and relevant legal principles
222. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 (LBA1990) requires decision makers to have special regard to the
desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings or any features of
special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Section 69(1) of
LBA1990 requires local planning authorities to designate as conservation areas
those parts of its area that are of special architectural or historic interest, the
character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Section
72(1) then requires a planning decision maker to pay special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
223. The Court of Appeal in Barnwell Manor149 reiterated that preserving means
doing no harm. If any harm is caused, including to the setting of a listed
building, the decision maker must give that harm considerable importance and
weight. The effect of the duty is to raise a strong presumption against granting
planning permission for development that causes harm precisely because the
desirability of preserving the character or appearance of the area – or the listed
building and its setting – is a consideration of considerable importance and
weight.
224. If harm is caused to such assets there is a need to consider alternative less
harmful uses of the same site (see Gibson150 and Forge Field151). In Gibson, the
judgement says:
“[69]….I do not doubt the correctness of what was said by Lindblom J, as he
then was, in the context of heritage harm in [Forge Field] when he said this at
[56]:
If there is a need for development of the kind proposed, which in this case
there was, but the development would cause harm to heritage assets,
which in this case it would, the possibility of the development being
undertaken on an alternative site on which that harm can be avoided
altogether will add force to the statutory presumption in favour of
preservation. Indeed, the presumption itself implies the need for a suitably
rigorous assessment of potential alternatives.
[70] Whilst that observation was made in the context of harm to heritage assets
and the need to consider alternative sites, I accept that there is a need to
consider alternative, less harmful, uses of the same site when evaluating a
149 Paragraphs 22 to 23 of East Northamptonshire DC and Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v
SSHCLG (CD11.21)
150 R(Gibson) v Waverley BC [2015] EWHC 3784 (Admin) per Foskett J (appended to HE11)
151 R (Forge Field Society) v Sevenoaks DC (CD11.21)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 57
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
proposal that would cause harm to a heritage asset: R (Langley Park School for
Girls Governing body) v Bromley LBC [2010] 1 P&CR 10 at [44-46]. However,
the way in which that evaluation may be carried out will vary from case to case.
The planning history from 2005 onwards in this case spoke for itself and it was
fully articulated in the officers’ report. It was, of course, a “material
consideration” in any event.”
225. The force of the point is that where a statute raises a strong presumption
against harm to designated heritage assets, and the decision maker finds a
proposal would cause harm to such assets, he should consider whether that
harm could be avoided or reduced. That is part of the balancing exercise that
results from the presumption.
226. In Mordue152 the Court of Appeal held that, generally, a decision maker who
works through paragraphs 192 to 196 of the Framework will comply with the
above statutory duties. In Bramshill153 the High Court found that the correct
approach under the Framework was not to undertake a net or internal heritage
balance but, instead, to lay out all of the harm and all of the benefits. However,
in relation to the duties under sections 66 and 72 of LBA1990, it is permissible
to take an overall view of the heritage effects in relation to a particular asset.
227. The Framework addresses the particular desirability of preserving heritage
assets. Whilst other benefits are clearly identified as relevant to the balancing of
harm and benefit under paragraph 196, they have no stipulated weight.
Paragraph 193 of the Framework requires decision makers to give great weight
to the asset’s conservation – the more important the asset the greater the
weight. Paragraph 194 states that any harm to the significance of a designated
asset requires a clear and convincing justification. Conservation is defined as:
“the process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way
that sustains and where appropriate enhances its significance.”
228. HE has published Guidance Notes on The Setting of Heritage Assets (GPA3) and
Tall Buildings154 which are relevant and referred to by all heritage witnesses.
229. To apply the Framework properly, the decision maker should clearly identify any
heritage harm and any heritage benefits. The harm and benefits should not be
netted off, but each should be quantified and weighed, bearing in mind the need
to give considerable importance and weight to the harm. Any benefits should be
taken into account as part of the balancing exercise under paragraph 196.
However, Dr Miele (the applicant’s heritage witness) and Mr Webster (the
Council’s heritage witness) have given quantifications of impact that balance
benefits against harm. This must be recognised because, when separated, the
harm found will inevitably be greater.
The quantification of harm
152 Mordue v SSCLG [2016] 1 WLR 2682 (appended to HE11)
153 City and Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 3437 (Admin) 3437 (appended to
HE11 and paragraphs 118 to 120 of the judgement reproduced at paragraph 10 of HE11)
154 CD11.18 and CD11.19 respectively
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 58
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
230. There is no need to overcomplicate this exercise which is a matter of judgement
for the decision maker. That judgement must however be reached in line with
the law set out above and having regard to policy. The Framework sets out
different balancing exercises in relation to substantial harm and less than
substantial harm. HE considers that the harm caused to designated heritage
assets in this case would be less than substantial.
231. Planning Practice Guidance advises that:
“what matters in assessing whether a proposal might cause harm is the impact
on the significance of the heritage asset. As the NPPF makes clear, significance
derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its
setting….within each category of harm (which category applies should be
explicitly identified), the extent of the harm may vary and should be clearly
articulated.”155
232. The first task is therefore to identify the significance of the asset, including the
contribution to significance made through setting. In Bedford156 the concept of
substantial harm was found to require the significance of the asset to be vitiated
altogether or very much reduced. That is a matter of judgement. It should be
recognised that Bedford was a decision considering the meaning of substantial
harm having regard to previous guidance (which no longer exists) on the facts
of that individual case. The existing guidance is set out in the Planning Practice
Guidance, which is a material consideration.
233. It was put to Mr Neale that, where an asset retains considerable significance in
its fabric, then there could hardly ever be substantial harm through
development in the setting as its significance would not be altogether vitiated
(or something close to that). This was then used to set the upper boundary of
less than substantial harm at close to total vitiation of the significance of the
asset. This approach makes the decision maker’s task unnecessarily
complicated. The critical exercise is to understand significance (including the
contribution of setting) and then reach a judgment as to the degree of harm
caused to that significance. Mr Neale agreed that, whilst it is relevant to
understand the extent of significance retained, that cannot define the impact.
The impact is the extent to which the significance is reduced.
234. In this case there would be direct harm to the NCCCA and indirect harm to a
large number of listed buildings. In relation to the listed buildings, it is common
ground that the approach in GPA3 is correct. This requires the assessment of
the degree to which the setting contributes to significance before the
assessment of the impact on significance.
235. The applicants refer to the Chiswick Curve appeal decision157. There, the
Inspector noted that substantial harm to a conservation area could be caused
by the removal of an important building within it. It must follow that
introduction of a new important (but harmful) building could do the same.
Giving examples of when there may be a serious reduction in significance is not
155 Reference ID: 18a – 18 -20190723
156 CD12.10
157 CD12.9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 59
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
particularly helpful from one case to another and does not reflect Government
policy or Planning Practice Guidance. What matters is the assessment of
significance and the impact to it. This is also true of the Smithfield Market
decision158 (referred to by SBH) where a very different judgement was reached
on the facts of that particular case. In this case HE does not find substantial
harm. The real question is the degree of harm to the significance of various
heritage assets.
236. The relevant impact on the NCCCA is the impact on its significance, which
means:
“the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its
heritage interest”.
What needs to be understood is the heritage or historic interest of the NCCCA.
Section 72 of LBA1990 is not seeking to preserve the general character and
appearance of the NCCCA but that which confers on it its special interest. It is
for this reason that Dr Miele was correct to distinguish heritage benefits (such
as the enhancement of the significance of the conservation area) from general
townscape benefits. For example, he argues that the tower would be beneficial
in townscape terms for its intrinsic architectural qualities and its wayfinding
function159. That would be a public benefit but not a heritage benefit.
237. This distinction is important because the justification for the harm caused to
designated heritage assets rests heavily on the arguments of wayfinding and
legibility. Harm to the special interest of the NCCCA attracts considerable
importance and weight. The same is not true of a general townscape benefit.
Nor can such a general benefit mitigate or reduce such harm. It can only be put
on the other side of the balance. It is also worth pointing out that the
wayfinding arguments only relate to a justification for the tower. No such
argument is advanced in relation to the overall bulk and height of the other
blocks which (on HE’s case) would also cause considerable heritage harm.
238. It is agreed that the baseline for the assessment is the existing situation, within
which Anglia Square is a negative influence on the significance of the NCCCA. If
the proposal would cause additional harm to the significance of the NCCCA, or
to the significance of any listed building, then LBA1990 raises a strong
presumption against it. In addition, the redevelopment of a negative site
presents an opportunity to enhance the significance of the conservation area.
Local policy
239. The DM Plan contains policies that establish a number of development control
tests. Taken together, the policies require the protection and enhancement of
the historic environment and that opportunities for its enhancement are
maximised. Anglia Square is seen as a significant opportunity for enhancement.
On the Council’s case, the proposal would fail to enhance the NCCCA. Indeed it
would cause harm to the NCCCA and harm (up to major harm) to listed
buildings. That would represent significant non-compliance with the
158 CD12.6
159 Paragraph 8.86 of Dr Miele’s proof (WH2/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 60
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
development plan. The evidence of Mr Neale sets out the policies of particular
relevance to heritage issues160. The following are highlighted:
• DM1 seeks to achieve sustainable development. It expects development to
(among other things) protect and enhance the physical, environmental and
heritage assets of the city.
• DM3(a) states that proposals in major gateways must respect the location
and context of the gateway. Landmark buildings should be of exceptional
quality. Paragraph 3.6 notes that landmarks can be achieved by design
(rather than height) and that the expectation of the policy is that gateway
sites should be marked by development of exceptionally high quality which
relies for its distinctiveness on design aspects other than size and height.
• DM3(b) states that the design of new buildings must pay careful attention
to the need to protect and enhance the significant long views of the major
landmarks (which are identified in appendix 8).
• DM3(c) states that proposals should respect, enhance and respond to the
character and local distinctiveness of the area. The design of all
development must have regard to the character of the surrounding
neighbourhood and the elements contributing to its overall sense of place,
giving significant weight to the uses and activities around it, the historic
context of the site, historic street patterns, plot boundaries, block sizes,
height and materials.
• DM9 states that development shall maximise opportunities to preserve,
enhance, or better reveal the significance of designated heritage assets.
240. There are development control tests that relate to heritage assets in DM1, DM3
and DM9. These are reinforced by JCS Policies 1 and 2. The supporting text to
DM3 recognises that the character of Norwich is a product of its 1,000 year
history, characterised by a tight urban form and a historic townscape of
particularly high quality. The requirement to protect the historic environment
runs throughout the development plan. The second bullet point of Policy DM1 is
to
“protect and enhance the physical, environmental and heritage assets of the
city.”
In determining applications, equal weight must be afforded to the economic,
environmental and social dimensions of sustainability. Paragraph 1.8 identifies
that development and economic growth, though desirable and necessary, is not
by itself sustainable – Norwich will not benefit from badly designed,
inappropriately located or poorly conceived proposals.
241. This essential balance runs through the development control tests for residential
and economic development. For example, DM18 states that development for
main town centre uses in LDCs will be permitted where it does not conflict with
the overall sustainable development criteria set out in policy DM1. The same
160 Paragraph 5.21 (and following) introduces the relevant policies and paragraph 9.30 (and
following) considers compliance (HE1/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 61
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
balancing consideration is found in DM19 (relating to office development) and
DM12 (relating to residential development). The overall sustainability balance is
to be struck with heritage protection at the forefront, which is unsurprising in
such a historic city centre.
242. There is nothing in the development plan that waters down the clear protection
to heritage assets afforded by policies DM1, DM3, DM9, JCS Policy 1 and JCS
Policy 2. There will only be compliance with DM12, DM18, and DM19 if there is
also compliance with the criteria of DM1. This is important to bear in mind when
considering whether the proposals comply with the development plan as a
whole. Each application must be assessed against DM3 and DM9. If they fail
these policies there will be a breach of the plan. Mr Parkin confirmed that these
policies provide a strong basis for refusal161.
243. There is nothing in development plan policy that identifies Anglia Square as
appropriate for a tall building. It is identified as an area for change in the City
Centre Key Diagram162 but there is no requirement that it must deliver a
particular amount of development. Working through the JCS policies, the
protection of the historic environment is a constant theme:
• Policy 1 states that heritage assets and the wider historic environment will
be conserved and enhanced;
• Policy 2 requires development proposals to respect the historic
environment taking into account conservation area appraisals;
• Policy 11, whilst identifying areas for comprehensive regeneration, requires
such regeneration to enhance the historic city, including its distinctive
character as identified in conservation area appraisals; and
• There is no policy which specifies a quantum, scale or form of development
for Anglia Square.
244. The more recent PGN, which was developed alongside the pre-application
proposals, has not changed this position. It makes clear that the site provides
an opportunity for significant enhancement of the NCCCA. The PGN does not
express any tolerance for harm, rather it speaks in positive terms of improving
views, respecting the existing scale of development and respecting the settings
of historic assets. The PGN is intended to guide the redevelopment of Anglia
Square in a way that accords with the development plan163. For the reasons set
out above, the proposal does not meet that intention.
245. The NCCCA Appraisal is also highly relevant. It contains a summary of the key
characteristics of the NCCCA together with policies and guidance that have been
framed to protect these characteristics164. Dr Miele and Mr Webster agreed that
considering a proposal against these policies and guidelines would provide a
good basis for assessing whether that proposal protects the significance of the
NCCCA. However, it is not an exercise that Dr Miele has undertaken. Mr Webster
161 Paragraph 12.3 of Mr Parkin’s proof (NCC1/1)
162 Page 73 of the JCS (CD2.2)
163 Paragraphs 7.86, 7.88, 7.96 and 9.2 of the PGN (CD2.11)
164 Pages 26 to 30 of CD2.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 62
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
has done so, identifying numerous shortcomings165. The policies of particular
significance are:
• B2 - retain historic street patterns and reinstate building lines. In areas of
low significance historic building lines must be reinstated.
• B4 - enhance the setting of the city walls.
• C1 - removal of negative landmarks.
• C2 - preserving and enhancing views of citywide and local landmarks.
Redevelopment proposals which block or detrimentally affect views of the
citywide landmarks (the Castle, the Anglican Cathedral, the Roman
Catholic Cathedral, St Peter Mancroft, City Hall and St Giles Church) will
not be approved.
• D2 - appropriate scale of new buildings. Development proposals must
respect their context and be of an appropriate scale. In ‘Significant areas’
and areas of ‘Low significance’166 the prevailing scale of existing traditional
buildings should be respected, but the careful siting of taller buildings and
use of larger scaled buildings in appropriate locations will be encouraged,
provided that they do not negatively impact on important views of citywide
and local landmarks or affect the setting of Listed Buildings.
• D3 - integration with context/grain. Design and access statements must
demonstrate how the development proposal respects the surrounding
buildings, landscape features and movement routes and how it integrates
with its surroundings. For large scale redevelopment proposals it may be a
case of showing how the proposals will be reinstating a lost context or
urban grain.
Impact on significance - overview
246. There is a considerable body of evidence before the Inquiry relating to a large
number of heritage assets. These submissions do not seek to summarise that
evidence. Rather, they consider the critical steps of the assessment and the
matters which indicate that the judgements of Mr Neale are to be preferred.
This is an unusual case in that all parties find material harm to assets of the
highest significance. The disagreements are about the degree of harm and the
number of assets affected. The proposed tower would be the second tallest
building in Norwich after the Cathedral.
247. Dr Miele finds the least harm. Nonetheless, he finds material harm to the
Cathedral, Church of St Simon and St Jude, Church of St Clement, Church of St
George and Church of St Augustine, all of which are Grade I listed. He also finds
harm to Nos 11 and 13 Fye Bridge Street and Bacon’s House, which are Grade
II* listed.
165 Paragraph 428 of the officers’ report (CD2.15)
166 Inspector’s note – the terms ‘significant areas’ and ‘low significance’ are used and defined
in the NCCCA Appraisal which pre-dates the Framework.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 63
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
248. Mr Webster167 finds harm to 4 of the 6 city landmarks, including moderate harm
to the Anglican Cathedral and the Roman Catholic Cathedral and material harm
to the Castle and City Hall. He finds net material harm to 11 out of the 16 Grade
I listed buildings affected, including major harm to the Church of St Clements.
He finds material harm to all 3 scheduled ancient monuments affected by the
proposal. He also finds major harm to a number of groupings within the NCCCA
– the St Augustines Street group, the Fye Bridge Street group and the Wensum
Street group. Even including his assessment of benefits, he finds minor to
moderate harm to the NCCCA as a whole.
249. Mr Neale168 sets out harm and benefit separately rather than presenting a net or
internal balance. His assessment includes harm to 16 Grade I listed buildings,
and 3 Scheduled Ancient Monuments. He finds severe harm to the NCCCA as a
whole. This is equivalent to Mr Webster’s major harm, the highest of his three
tiers of less than substantial harm.
250. Mr Forshaw169 (on behalf of SBH) finds substantial harm to the significance of
the NCCCA and serious harm to a number of assets. Compared with the
assessments of HE and the Council, he finds harm to a higher degree and harm
to additional assets. The assets in question include the Church of St Augustine,
Gildencroft, St Martin at Oak, St Mary’s Coslany, St George’s Colegate, Bacon’s
House and Doughty’s Hospital.
251. Whilst there is a range of views, one has a sense of the implications of this
development when all of the heritage experts find material harm to the
Cathedral, an asset of universally acclaimed exceptional significance. The
Framework seeks to protect all designated assets, the strength of the
presumption being greater in relation to assets of the highest significance. The
development plan gives explicit protection to views of the city landmarks. The
biggest failing of this scheme is that the site presents an opportunity to enhance
the NCCCA but the proposal would do the very opposite. The chosen form and
scale of the proposal would cause harm to the special interest and significance
of the NCCCA and to the city landmarks.
Significance - listed buildings
252. There is little between the experts regarding the significance of the listed
buildings. The differences relate more to the assessment of the contribution
made to significance by setting, which in turn affects the degree of impact.
253. HE commends the analysis of Mr Neale as a thorough understanding of
significance including an explicit application of GPA3. This enables one properly
to understand how setting contributes to the significance of the asset. Mr Neale
identifies the attributes of setting (listed in step 2 of GPA3170) that can
contribute to significance. For example, in relation to the Cathedral, one must
167 Appendix 1 of Mr Webster’s rebuttal (NCC2/4)
168 Appendix 6 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/7)
169 Paragraphs 45 to 51 of Mr Forshaw’s proof (SBH1/1)
170 Page 8 of CD11.18
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 64
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
consider where the cathedral is seen from, how it was designed to be seen and
how it is seen171. This includes not only from the Cathedral Close and the higher
land to the east172 but also from the approach to the city from the north173. Mr
Neale recognises that the visual and monumental role of the Cathedral, both
symbolic and pre-eminent, is very much part of its significance. Dr Miele’s
evidence174 does not assess the significance of the main listed buildings under
consideration or carry out step 2 of GPA3.
254. The Castle is another good example. Among the finest Norman castles in the
country, it is of exceptional significance. As a defensive structure, strategically
positioned where a ridge overlooks the river valley below, setting is fundamental
to its significance. Mr Neale anchors his assessment by reference to the relevant
attributes from GPA3, which include topography, functional relationships, views
towards and from the asset, intentional inter-visibility with natural features and
visual dominance. He recognises that in views out from the Castle, which
include the river valley and the wooded ridges which rise above it, the
importance of topography and functional relationships can still be readily
appreciated175. In short, Mr Neale’s assessment is robust, transparent and
justified.
Significance - the conservation area
255. As noted above, it is agreed that the NCCCA Appraisal contains an objective
description of its special interest. Mr Neale addresses the significance of the
NCCCA in section 6 of his proof, considering its attributes in detail. This enables
him to be clear as to its significance and special interest. Mr Neale has identified
three perspectives that help to convey the special interest of the NCCCA in order
to understand how it may be affected - the local character north of the
Wensum, the wider intimacy of the city and the image of the city, which reflects
its history, pattern and hierarchy. The key characteristics identified in the
NCCCA Appraisal include the “tight intimate network of streets and alleys”, the
citywide views of the city landmarks and important views of local landmarks176.
256. There is no such analysis at the heart of Dr Miele’s analysis. Mr Webster
accepted (in cross-examination) that the officers’ report had not identified the
particular significance of the NCCCA and he should have undertaken a more
rigorous analysis. Similarly, his proof of evidence does not assess or describe
the significance or special interest of the NCCCA, although it does conclude that
it would be harmed (characterised as minor-moderate harm). Dr Miele agreed
that in order to understand the impact of the proposal one must understand the
special interest of the area in which it would be placed. Mr Neale’s analysis is
closely tied to the NCCCA Appraisal and is entirely consistent with it. HE submits
that Mr Neale’s approach is to be preferred.
171 Paragraph 6.23 and footnote 88 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
172 Viewpoints 60, 8, 9 and 10
173 Viewpoints 14 and 15
174 Section 6 of Dr Miele’s proof (WH2/1)
175 Paragraphs 6.10 and 6.11 and footnotes 80 and 81 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
176 Points 19, 22 and 23 on page 26 of CD2.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 65
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
257. The following points may be made in relation to Northern City character area, as
described in the NCCCA Appraisal177:
• Magdalen Street and St Augustines Street represent key historic
approaches to the city centre from the north;
• those streets are relatively narrow and intimate, the typical grain being 2 -
3 storey domestic scale properties on the edge of the footpaths. One of the
management principles is to restrict new development to 2 - 3 storeys;
• there are no negative markers in this area and no large-scale buildings;
• several listed buildings line Magdalen Street and St Augustines Street;
• positive frontages include the entirety of Magdalen Street and St
Augustines Street as one approaches Anglia Square;
• positive views include the view to the Castle along Magdalen Street;
• there is also a view along St Augustines Street to the Cathedral; and
• the Church of St Augustine is a local landmark.
258. The key characteristics of the Colegate character area include178:
• the medieval street pattern of the city centre south of the river;
• views of the city landmarks to the south;
• the area to the south of Anglia Square has the character of small, intimate
streets, narrow alleys and courtyards;
• the prevailing scale in this part is 2.5 to 3 storeys;
• the extent of listed buildings, including along Magdalen Street;
• positive frontages include Magdalen Street, Calvert Street and St George
Street (streets from which the development would be highly visible);
• a positive view south from Calvert Street and a negative one north from
Magdalen Street; and
• the management principles include connecting the area to the other side of
the ring road, which would once have been a continuation of the medieval
street pattern.
259. These are the local characteristics that proposals must respect and enhance to
comply with the development plan. DM Plan Policy DM3(c) requires design to
give significant weight to the historic context. These street patterns, plot
boundaries, block sizes and heights are key elements of that context.
260. These two character areas represent the immediate context in which the
development would sit. Moreover, they are consistent with the special character
177 Pages 35 and following in CD2.10
178 Pages 57 and following in CD2.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 66
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
of the NCCCA as a whole. The key characteristics of intimacy, enclosure, scale
and grain pervade the historic city. For example, the Elm Hill and Maddermarket
character area (to the south of the River Wensum) is described as
“one of the most attractive in the city with a grid of often very narrow and
intimate streets generally running north - south and linked by more major
routes running east - west.”
261. All witnesses agree that the impacts along Wensum Street would be materially
harmful. Mr Webster considers that there would be major harm to the assets in
question179. Dr Miele agreed that significant harm would arise because the
development would create an uncharacteristic focal point in views north from
this historic area. This would detract from the intimacy and enclosure of the Elm
Hill and Maddermarket character area, an area of the highest significance,
where the characteristics of intimacy, enclosure and domestic scale are strongly
appreciated. There would also be harm to the significance of many listed
buildings within these views, including the Grade I listed Church of St
Clements180.
262. Intimacy is a defining quality of the NCCCA. It is readily appreciable from a
large number of locations, including those close to the site and those further
away, such as Wensum Street, where the effects would be experienced. The
fact that there may be some differentiation across a wider conservation area
does not dilute special characteristics where they are found. This is why the
guidelines set out in the NCCCA Appraisal place such emphasis on development
being appropriate in scale to the locality and not negatively impacting on
important views or landmarks. Whilst Anglia Square does not itself demonstrate
intimacy, when assessing the effect of the proposal one must consider the
impact on key characteristics and see how successful the proposal is in
respecting them and taking the opportunities for enhancement.
263. The third perspective identified by Mr Neale is the image of the city, which
includes its pattern and hierarchy. Mr Neale does not suggest that the pattern is
fixed. The image and pattern of the city is a key characteristic of the NCCCA, as
is the role of the city landmarks. Change should be managed in a way that
protects that significance. Mr Neale emphasised that change can be positive.
The question is whether change brings enhancement or harm to significance.
The significance of the citywide landmarks is enhanced by the interplay between
them. Collectively they give visual and architectural meaning to the hierarchy
and pattern of the city, which has been established over a thousand years. They
are all set within the southern part of the city centre, responding to its
topography, and were intended to reflect the power of the church and the state.
264. The northern part of the city centre forms a consistent (though contrasting)
element of the pattern of the city. It continues the medieval street pattern and
the general domestic scale of the historic buildings, with some Victorian
industrial buildings to the west. There is a clear pattern and hierarchy to the
medieval city north and south. An element of this is the absence of tall buildings
in the north. The dramatic views of the citywide landmarks, as seen from the
179 Table appended to Mr Webster’s rebuttal
180 Viewpoints 25 and 56
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 67
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
east, disclose their status and interplay and the concentration of power to the
south. The northern part appears as a continuum of the same medieval city, but
of lower status, looked over and ruled from the south. The spread of historic
buildings is very strongly felt but their scale is domestic within the medieval
street pattern, including through the numerous medieval churches.
Impact
The given justification for the scheme
265. There are some clear inconsistencies in the justification for the scheme which
indicate that the proposals are not justifiable when considered properly against
the significance of the affected heritage assets. The Design and Access
Statement (DAS)181 seeks to respond to the heritage assessment carried out by
CgMs182. That assessment gave initial recommendations as to how to avoid
heritage harm by providing buildings of comparable scale to the existing. It
includes a heat map that indicates thresholds which, if exceeded, are likely to
have a major impact on heritage assets. However, it recognises that the
methodology cannot assess cumulative harm. Specific advice is given for
individual groups of assets. For example, a threshold of 3.5 to 4 storeys is
suggested along Magdalen Street, rising to 5 storeys behind183. Reference is
made to the:
“intimate urban quality of Magdalen Street with its strong sense of enclosure,
narrow pavements and sinuous north - south route. Views along Magdalen
Street are likewise important, particularly those towards the south in which
Norwich Castle figures prominently”
266. Five storeys is recommended for the street frontage of Pitt Street, (blocks D and
E), where the scheme adjoins the Church of St Augustine, Gildencroft and St
Augustines Street. Development above this level is identified as being likely to
have a major impact on the heritage assets, including the Grade I listed church.
Despite this advice, the proposal would significantly exceed the thresholds in a
number of places. The effect of these exceedances can be seen in the
photomontages184. It is useful to compare the existing building heights185 with
the exceedances186. Along Magdalen Street, 7 storeys are proposed in the 5
storey zone, with 9 and 11 storey elements in the 8 storey zone behind. At Pitt
Street, 6 and 7 storeys are proposed in blocks D and E in the 5 storey zone. The
20 storey tower would be in a zone where the threshold is 10 to 12 storeys.
267. It is not surprising that the result is major heritage harm. This is consistent with
the heritage assessment. The officers’ report commented that a reduction in
height and massing would have created a more sympathetic relationship with
the surroundings187. However, Mr Vaughan (the applicants’ architect) explained
181 Page 77 of CD4.10
182 CD4.86.3(i)
183 Page 74 of CD4.86.3(i)
184 Viewpoints 32, 34 and 35
185 Page 59 of the DAS (CD4.10)
186 Page 77 of the Addendum DAS (CD7.10)
187 Paragraph 311 of CD2.15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 68
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
that the design reflected architectural choices, made as part of an iterative
discussion, rather than a pre-determined brief to deliver a fixed amount of
development188. It is hard to see how heritage harm deriving from such choices,
rather than commercial necessity, can be regarded as justified.
Advice from Design South East
268. Both the officers’ report and Mr Vaughan refer to Design South East as
supporting the design189. However, there was a series of reviews. Mr Vaughan
accepted that Design South East had:
“serious concerns about the bulk and mass of the proposals and how this will
relate to the streets immediately surrounding the development and affect views
across the wider city”190
The strength of the concerns, which relate to both the tower and the
surrounding blocks, is clear from the language used. They have not been
overcome by changes to the scheme and Mr Vaughan provides no response in
his proof.
269. In relation to the surrounding blocks, Design South East said:
“with blocks of over 10 storeys, it is only in comparison with the tower that
these could be considered low rise, and in the context of the wider city they are
very prominent. These blocks are not just tall, but also very deep and wide,
creating monoliths that are out of scale with the fine grain of the surrounding
historic urban fabric”191
These concerns remained at the end of the process192. Mr Webster conceded
that the officers’ report was remiss in not drawing later reviews and these
continuing serious concerns to the attention of the committee.
Justification for the tower
270. The justification put forward by Dr Miele193 is a townscape one. He
acknowledged that there is nothing in the CgMs work that justifies the proposed
tower. There has never been a tall building in this part of the historic city. CgMs
attempted to justify the tower as a “strong visual counterpoint” to the
Cathedral194. However, they went on to assess the tower as causing moderate
harm to the significance of the Cathedral in the very views that would enable
the counterpoint to be appreciated. It is plain that, in heritage terms, the tower
is out of place and has no justification. The DAS195 explains the role of the tower
as:
188 Inspector’s note – confirmed by Mr Vaughan in answer to questions from Mr Williams
189 Page 112 and following and paragraph 9.4 of Mr Vaughan’s proof (WH1/1)
190 Page 4 of CD11.16
191 Page 4 of CD11.16
192 Page 2 of CD11.17
193 Paragraph 7.21 of Dr Miele’s proof (WH2/1)
194 Page 85 of CgMs (CD4.86.3(i))
195 Pages 78 to 80 of CD4.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 69
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• a pivotal landmark and a way finder for Anglia Square;
• a gateway marker to the City from the north, serving an important civic
function;
• a strong visual counterpoint to historic landmarks in Norwich, particularly
those south of the river Wensum, the most important of which is Norwich
Cathedral;
• a key marker on the skyline of Norwich, which would celebrate place and
space; and
• introducing an element of time depth to the Cathedral’s extended setting.
271. In summary, the heritage analysis which was intended to guide the design
process itself suggests the causation of major harm. The independent design
reviews show that Design South East had serious concerns about the overall
bulk and scale of the proposals and found no underlying rationale for the tower.
The design justification of creating a pivotal landmark, prominent in distant
views, is fundamentally at odds with the pattern and hierarchy of the city.
Indeed it sets out to re-balance that hierarchy, by providing a rival to the pre-
eminence and significance of the Cathedral and the other city landmarks
clustered in the southern part of the city. Rather than providing a justification, it
actually underscores the harm that would be caused.
The root of the problem
272. The heritage harm stems from the overall scale of the proposal as a whole, not
just the tower. It would comprise blocks with very large footprints, of very
significant height and bulk. This would be entirely uncharacteristic of the grain
of the medieval northern city and wholly at odds with the character of the
NCCCA. Whilst it is necessary to recognise the negative features of the existing
Anglia Square, the approach set out in the Framework allows for this. On the
Council’s case, the proposal would cause harm to the significance of designated
heritage assets over and above the status quo, taking account of heritage
benefits. The Council also finds material harm to the significance of the NCCCA.
This may be contrasted with the PGN, which identifies an opportunity for
significant enhancement to the character of the conservation area as well as to
the setting of local heritage assets196.
Impact assessment
273. Mr Neale’s assessment of the impacts is set out in his proof and summarised in
his appendix 6. The Secretary of State is invited to consider his assessment as
fair and justified by underpinning analysis. Rather than rehearsing the impacts,
these submissions highlight some issues that are contentious. In many respects
there is agreement between the Council and HE that there would be material
harm. The differences relate to the degree of harm.
274. With regard to the NCCCA, it is necessary to analyse the key characteristics that
give rise to its special character. Although the NCCCA covers an extensive area,
196 Paragraph 7.86 of CD2.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 70
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
the true effect is not judged by considering a zone of visual influence. Particular
attention should be paid to those areas in proximity to the site and to those
characteristics that pervade the city, as Mr Neale has done. Whilst there are
areas that would not be affected at all by the proposal, the image of the city is
widespread and is appreciated from distant viewpoints.
275. The applicants’ approach pays insufficient attention to the impact of the
proposal on significance. Focussing on some specific positive views (identified in
the NCCCA Appraisal) is not an assessment of impact. Such views reflect the
present situation. They are not intended to guide an assessment of a new tall
building. For example, a positive view is identified from the north of Calvert
Street looking south197. This is a view towards the Castle from an enclosed
street with an intimate, domestic scale. The proposed development would be
highly visible to the north if one turned around198. The fact that the view south
adds to the character of the NCCCA (through what Mr Neale calls the image of
the city) supports Mr Neale’s argument, it does not undermine it.
276. Although Anglia Square is of a larger scale than its surroundings, the Council
finds that the overall height and massing of the proposal would create a form of
development that would be “strikingly different and unfamiliar”199. The officers’
report commented that the failure of the development to harmonise with its
surroundings, in terms of the height and the size of the block footprints, was a
significant weakness200. Mr Neale endorses the description (used in the officers’
report) that the proposal would be seen as a “city within a city”. This would
represent a clear failure to be in keeping with the character of the NCCCA. Mr
Webster finds that there would be a benefit to Magdalen Street whereas Mr
Neale considers that there would be severe harm201. However, the officers’
report recognises that a discordant relationship would be created here202.
277. As set out above, the principles of the NCCCA Appraisal provide a good
touchstone for considering the effect of the proposals. HE submits there are
very clear breaches of these policies and guidelines, in particular B2, B4, C2, D2
and D3, demonstrating harm to the special character of the NCCCA.
City landmarks
278. The officers’ report finds that the impact on the central group of iconic heritage
assets would be major adverse in some views although this would not quite
amount to substantial harm to the setting of the Cathedral203. HE submits that
the concept of a strong visual counterpoint to these iconic landmarks (as
described in the DAS) would make it inevitable that the ability to appreciate
them would be diminished. The preservation of the city landmarks is
fundamental to the image of the city and is embedded within a specific policy
197 Marked with a blue arrow on page 59 of CD 2.10
198 Viewpoint 38 gives an indication (Inspector’s note – the viewpoints are not the same,
viewpoint 38 being further south on Calvert Street)
199 Paragraph 4.2 of Mr Webster’s proof (NCC2/1)
200 Paragraph 593 of CD2.15
201 Viewpoints 34 and 35
202 Paragraph 330 of CD2.15
203 Paragraph 394 of CD2.15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 71
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
(DM3(b)). Even on the applicants’ case, the proposals fail to achieve this. The
harm stems from an architectural choice to provide a pivotal landmark. Design
South East were clear from an early stage that there was no rationale for doing
so.
Heritage benefits
279. There is disagreement as to the weight to be given to heritage benefits. The
Council204 and the applicants attach greater weight to these than Mr Neale205
does. Whilst the removal of the existing buildings and surface parking would be
positive, the weight to be attached is limited by the fact that their removal
would be a necessary part of any process to replace them. The creation of a
street on an alignment similar to a historic street must be assessed having
regard to the bulk and scale of the buildings on either side. The benefit of
framing views of landmarks requires consideration of the quality of the
development framing such views. When assessed in context, HE considers that
the benefits would do very little to weigh against the harm caused by the
scheme.
Townscape benefits
280. Mr Neale has based his appraisal on all the material presented by the applicants
and has judged the impacts of that particular design on the significance of the
heritage assets in question206. That is an entirely reasonable approach and HE
rejects the notion that one can only assess the heritage harm properly if one
undertakes a freestanding architectural appraisal. The more generic townscape
benefits, such as way finding, which Dr Miele relies on serve a different purpose
which relates to the proposed tower, the justification for which has been
addressed above. Any such townscape benefits do not reduce or offset the
heritage harm.
Planning balance
281. HE does not strike the overall planning balance, which will involve material
considerations outside its area of specialism. However, HE does advise the
Secretary of State on the proper legal and policy approach. This requires a
strong presumption to be applied against development that would harm
designated heritage assets. The presumption is strongest in relation to assets of
the highest significance, which is undoubtedly the case here. HE’s evidence is
that there would be severe harm to the significance of the NCCCA, a designated
asset of the highest significance.
282. There would be harm, to varying degrees, to a range of designated assets of the
highest significance including the Cathedral (considerable harm), the Castle
(considerable harm), the Roman Catholic Cathedral (marked harm), City Hall
(considerable harm), Church of St Peter Mancroft (marked harm) and the
Church of St Giles (marked harm). These are citywide landmarks which,
together with views from and towards them, form a key part of the character of
204 Paragraph 4.12 of Mr Webster’s proof (NCC2/1)
205 Paragraphs 8.7 to 8.15 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
206 Paragraph 8.4 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 72
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
the NCCCA. In terms of national policy and development plan policy, the highest
protection should be afforded to them. Norwich has an exceptional number of
medieval churches which play a remarkable role in the townscape. Mr Neale
described how these towers “articulate the roofscape of the city”207. The scale of
the proposal would create a radical disparity with the coherence of the
cityscape, harming the city and causing marked harm to the significance of the
individual medieval churches.
283. The proposal would be entirely out of keeping with the historic character of the
area to the north of the river, causing harm to a number of assets of the highest
significance. This would include the Grade I Church of St Augustine (severe
harm and minor benefit), the Grade I Church of St George’s Colegate (marked
harm), the scheduled ancient monument of the City Walls at Magpie Lane
(marked harm) and the Grade II* Bacon’s House (minor harm).
284. The starting point for an overall planning balance is an assessment against the
development plan, which in this case comprises the JCS and the DM Plan. The
Framework is a material consideration but does not obviate the need for
detailed assessment against the adopted development plan. The relevant
policies, which have been addressed above, contain a recurring requirement to
protect and enhance the historic environment (JCS Policies 1, 2 and 11). The
requirement in Policy DM3(b) to protect long views of the landmarks flows from
analysis within the NCCCA Appraisal and is bespoke for Norwich. Similarly,
Policy DM3(c), which requires significant weight to be given to protecting local
distinctiveness, flows from analysis of Norwich’s history and its tight urban
form. Policy DM9 specifies that development in Norwich shall maximise
opportunities to preserve, enhance or better reveal the significance of
designated heritage assets. On Mr Neale’s analysis all of these policies would be
breached.
285. Moreover, the DM Plan ensures that the criteria for sustainable development in
DM1 are embedded in the policies for main town centre uses in large district
centres (DM18), office development (DM19), and residential development
(DM12). This means that the proposal must be sustainable development within
the meaning of DM1 for it to be compliant with those policies. The critical role of
DM1 is to ensure that potentially competing strands of sustainable development
are given equal weight, such that the need to protect heritage assets is not
weakened to pave the way for economic development.
286. Mr Parkin’s compartmentalisation of compliance with the development plan does
not allow for this rounded consideration208. Mr Luder focused on the economic
aspects of JCS Policies 11 and 19209, ignoring the need to read the policy as a
whole. The development plan requires the regeneration of the northern city to
be done in a way that enhances the NCCCA, as does the PGN. The capacity of
the site is left for detailed consideration in the light of the constraints210. It is
207 Paragraphs 8.897 – 8.91, 104 of HE1/1
208 Paragraphs 19.26 to 19.40 of Mr Parkin’s proof (NCC1/1)
209 Paragraph 3.5 of Mr Luder’s proof (WH4/1)
210 Paragraph 7.10 of CD2.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 73
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
clear from the officers’ report that the proposal fails badly against this important
strand of sustainable development211.
The relevance of viability
287. HE accepts that viability and deliverability are relevant to the planning balance
and to the exercise under paragraph 196 of the Framework. The viability of the
proposal is marginal in current economic conditions, as reflected in the award of
marginal viability funding of £15 million. The applicants have confirmed their
intention to deliver the scheme on the basis of the current viability
assessments212. This bears on the balancing exercise. It does not amount to a
freestanding consideration in favour of the scheme. The heritage harm caused
by the proposal would be permanent. The rationale for considering alternative
schemes is to see whether that harm could be avoided or reduced. HE submits
that:
• Do nothing is an option that should not be ruled out because the proposal
would cause considerable harm to the historic environment. As Mr Parkin
acknowledged, if permission is refused there would then be a period of
reflection during which the Council would work towards a solution. The
present consideration of alternatives has taken place against current
economic conditions.
• The Council’s analysis of alternatives has not considered relative heritage
harms, it looks only at whether the same benefits could be produced. In
the officers’ report Option 4 (do minimum, demolish and convert) was not
ruled out on viability grounds. It was accepted as producing heritage
benefit rather than heritage harm213.
• The Ash Sakula proposals214 show that an alternative approach can provide
a mixed use scheme consistent with the uses appropriate for the LDC. It is
not contested that these proposals would represent a significant
enhancement in heritage terms and that there would be an appropriate
mix of uses. Mr Vaughan acknowledged that there are elements of the
plans that have merit but he said that they failed to address the detail of
the brief215. However, the brief was not prescriptive.
• The Ash Sakula scheme has not been put forward as an alternative,
deliverable planning application. Rather, it demonstrates an alternative
approach that would produce heritage benefit while delivering a
development consistent with an LDC. It is not inevitable that there will be
harm in order to deliver policy objectives216.
288. The absence of an alternative fully drawn up scheme that has been shown to be
deliverable does not mean that this application proposal is the right scheme at
the right time. That can only be decided by performing carefully the balancing
211 Paragraphs 579 to 587 of CD2.15
212 Agreed position statement on viability matters (ID10)
213 Paragraph 161 of CD2.15
214 Appendix 1 to Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/2)
215 Paragraph 9.5 of Mr Vaughan’s proof (WH1/1)
216 Paragraphs 10.14 and 10.16 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 74
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
exercises required under section 38(6) and paragraph 196 of the Framework. If
the balance is against the proposal then it must be refused.
THE CASE FOR SAVE BRITAIN’S HERITAGE (RULE 6 PARTY)217
289. The planning system places an emphasis on the preservation and enhancement
of the UK’s built heritage. Great weight must be given to the conservation of
designated assets. The more important they are the greater the weight should
be. The Framework states that any harm to designated heritage assets requires
“clear and convincing” justification218. Decision makers should clearly articulate
the extent of harm (however categorised) so that any justification can be
properly weighed. It is also necessary to establish whether harm to each
designated asset falls within the category of “substantial” or “less than
substantial harm”. The policy duties set out in the Framework give effect to the
statutory duty to have special regard/attention to the desirability of preserving
the special features of listed buildings and conservation areas. Together they
create a “strong presumption” against proposals which will cause harm to
significant assets219
290. It is a striking feature of this case that all parties accept that the proposal would
cause harm to a range of Grade I and II* listed assets. This is even more
extraordinary when it is recognised that of one of these is the Cathedral, a
building described by HE and Mr Forshaw (SBH’s heritage witness) as being of
exceptional, European level importance. Mr Webster (the Council’s heritage
witness) describes the harm as being in the moderate range of less than
substantial harm.
Significance of affected designated heritage assets
291. There is little dispute about the significance of the NCCCA and the affected listed
buildings. Mr Forshaw emphasised the quality of Norwich’s historic environment.
In addition to the Cathedral, which dominates the city and creates its distinctive
skyline, the city is blessed with an unrivalled collection of parish churches and
other monuments. The settings of these assets overlap and include a well
preserved street plan which forms a key part of the character of the interwoven,
low rise city centre. That historic urban environment is protected in its own right
by designation as the NCCCA. It also makes a major contribution to the
significance of the individual buildings by allowing them to be experienced in a
context which reflects and respects their historic, aesthetic and architectural
significance220.
292. Overall, it is clear that Norwich has an “extraordinary historic character”221.
Faced with all this richness, there may be a temptation to lose focus on the
individual assets and under-appreciate the range of impacts which the scheme
may have. Mr Forshaw emphasised the significance which he saw even in the
217 The closing submissions, which are summarised here, are at SBH12
218 Paragraph 194 of the Framework
219 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v Secretary of State [2015] 1 W.L.R. 45 at [16]-[29]
(CD11.21) and Jones v Mordue [2016] 1 WLR 2682 at [26]-[28] (CD10.14)
220 Paragraphs 8, 12 and 23 of Mr Forshaw’s proof (SBH1/1)
221 Paragraph 1.4 of Mr Neale’s proof (HE1/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 75
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Anglia Square character area. Although it is less significant than other parts of
the NCCCA, it is still protected by section 72 of LBA1990. There are also locally
listed buildings at Pitt Street which are to be demolished. These should not be
undervalued.
Impact of the proposed development
293. Mr Forshaw showed how the bulk and scale of the proposal, including the tower,
would lead to a serious, even massive, disruption to this historic urban
environment. This would cause some of its key distinctive features, most
notably the skyline, to be lost or harmed. There would be a serious erosion of
key elements that comprise the significance of the NCCCA. At the Inquiry, Mr
Forshaw explained his views primarily by reference to the visualisations but he
was clear that his assessments had been drawn from his site visits.
294. A major area of difference between Mr Forshaw and Mr Webster/Dr Miele related
to the benefits of replacing the existing buildings. Whilst Mr Forshaw accepted
that there would be some townscape benefits, these are different in kind to
heritage benefits which would attract great weight. This point appears to have
been accepted by Dr Miele222. Mr Forshaw commented that, whatever the design
merits of the proposal in isolation, they fall at the first hurdle in terms of failing
to respect context. He also pointed out the fundamental tension between the
applicants’ argument that the tower would bring townscape benefits (such as
wayfinding or legibility) and their suggestion that the visibility of the tower
would not unduly harm the significance of the Cathedral and other landmarks
whose primacy it would compete with.
295. The prominence of the proposal, in a location which is not appropriate in terms
of the historic environment, would cause harm. The officers’ report referred to
the design as lumpen and harmfully unfamiliar in its surroundings. Its bulk
would form a barrier within the historic city and it would loom over St
Augustines Street and Wensum Street in a disturbing manner. The proposal
would fail to restore the historic street pattern. The removal of harmful aspects
of Anglia Square would be outweighed by the much more harmful impacts of the
new and more prominent buildings.
296. It is difficult to see how the design can be justified by reference to the
surrounding historic environment. Dr Miele accepted that it would significantly
exceed the parameters identified by CgMs in the Built Heritage Statement223. It
is hard to understand why this happened in the light of Mr Vaughan’s evidence
that his design brief included no specific number of units which needed to be
provided224. The applicants have not sought to justify the particular design
choices made in terms of viability. It seems that the only real justification for
the height and bulk of the proposed buildings is that the applicants believe them
to be of townscape value.
222 Inspector’s note – in answer to questions from Mr Williams, Dr Miele accepted that there is
a distinction between townscape benefits and heritage benefits
223 Paragraph 7.1 and following of CD4.86 Vol 3(i)
224 Inspector’s note – confirmed by Mr Vaughan in answer to questions from Mr Williams
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 76
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
297. However, as Mr Parkin accepted, there are significant weaknesses in the design.
Design South East had fundamental concerns about the rationale for the tower
and over-development which remain unresolved225. Given the applicants’
commitment to a rationale for the tower based on “an express desire for the
building to be visible and punctuate the skyline”226, they appear to be
irresolvable. The problem with the applicants’ approach is that the concept of a
regeneration landmark is simply not appropriate for the sensitive historic
environment of Norwich.
298. The Ash Sakula design (presented by HE) is a powerful reminder of a better way
in which Anglia Square could be redeveloped. Whilst it is accepted that it is not
viable, it still shows how a different concept could be evolved which would
deliver heritage benefits rather than harms, in accordance with DM Plan Policy
DM9 and the PGN227. SBH submits that net heritage benefits should be a
minimum requirement for any acceptable scheme on this site. The proposal fails
to achieve that, resulting in a significant failure to comply with DM Plan Policies
DM3 and DM9.
Approach to substantial harm, as that term is used in the Framework
299. Mr Forshaw concluded that the proposal would lead to a range of serious (albeit
less than substantial) harms to individual buildings of the highest importance. It
would also lead to substantial harm to the NCCCA as a whole. This conclusion
was subject to particular criticism by the applicants, who suggested that Mr
Forshaw’s assessment was flawed because he had not undertaken a detailed
assessment of the significance that would remain in the NCCCA. This follows on
from an argument put in opening228, to the effect that, because large parts of
the NCCCA would be untouched by the proposal, there cannot be substantial
harm. It was argued that such an assessment depends on how much
significance is left in the asset. SHB submits that this is obviously wrong.
300. The Judge in Bedford made clear that the function of what is now paragraphs
195 and 196 of the Framework is to provide a varying test of consent according
to “the quantum of harm to significance”229. It is therefore the quantum of what
is lost, not the quantum of what remains, that is the primary focus of any
analysis. Dr Miele accepted this point in cross examination. The NCCCA is itself
extensive and contains a range of important assets. If it has to lose most or all
of its significance before substantial harm arises, rather than just a serious
reduction such that significance is “very much reduced”230, then the practical
effect would be that substantial harm could never arise. Even the construction
of the Shard on the footprint of Anglia Square, or demolition of the Cathedral,
would not result in the NCCCA having no or little significance left.
301. The applicants’ approach would lead to the surprising result that the more
significant an asset is, the harder it will be for a development to substantially
225 CD11.16 and CD11.17
226 Page 112 of Mr Vaughan’s proof (WH1/1)
227 Page 40 of CD2.11
228 Paragraphs 70 and 74 of the applicants’ opening (WH12)
229 Paragraph 17 of Bedford v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 2847 (Admin) (CD12.10)
230 Paragraph 25 of Bedford (CD12.10)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 77
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
harm it. Taking that to its logical conclusion, this proposal could only cause
substantial harm to the NCCCA if the NCCCA were smaller and less significant.
The way in which Bedford has been applied in the Smithfield231 decision shows
that this approach is obviously wrong. There, the Inspector found that the
partial demolition of a group of unlisted buildings within the Smithfield
Conservation Area would amount to substantial harm. This was due to the loss
of key distinctive features, notwithstanding that the proposal did not touch on
other highly significant character areas, including St Bartholomew’s Hospital and
Priory. On the applicants’ approach, no finding of substantial harm would have
been possible.
302. The Smithfield decision is a better indicator of the correct approach to the
current situation than the Chiswick Curve decision232. In that case the
development proposals were not within a conservation area, nor even within the
buffer zone for the World Heritage Site, but some distance away. In this case
the proposal would be within the NCCCA and would harm key characteristics of
the designated area, in particular through disruption of the iconic skyline.
303. The correct approach to substantial harm is to ask whether the overall
cumulative impact of the proposal on the NCCCA would result in a very
significant or serious reduction in its significance. A useful touchstone for this
will be whether the proposal would result in full or partial loss of key elements.
For the reasons advanced in Mr Forshaw’s evidence, SBH submits that it would.
The Inspector is therefore invited to find that substantial harm would be caused
to the NCCCA.
Planning balance
304. Under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section
38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the application falls
to be considered against the statutory development plan and all other material
considerations. These will include the Framework. For the above reasons, SBH
considers that there is clear conflict with the heritage policies of the
development plan. This means that, considered as a whole, the proposal fails to
accord with the development plan. Other material considerations largely weigh
in favour of refusing permission. Under paragraph 195 of the Framework,
substantial harm to a designated asset should lead to refusal unless it can be
demonstrated that substantial public benefits exist and cannot be provided
elsewhere or in a less harmful manner.
305. SBH has not undertaken a full assessment of the benefits but Mr Forshaw was
able to comment on the basis of his long experience as a planning officer. He
accepts there would be benefits, in terms of housing and affordable housing, but
considers that these benefits have been overstated. There are other sites where
the same benefits can be provided. Mr Forshaw suggests that the public realm
benefits would be limited due to shortcomings of the spaces to be created. He
also considers that the heritage benefits claimed by the applicant are
overstated. Overall, he considers that the benefits would be modest and
231 CD12.6
232 CD12.9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 78
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
insufficient to outweigh the heritage harm, regardless of whether such harm is
considered under paragraph 195 or 196 of the Framework.
306. Opening submissions for the applicants suggested that the Council is best
placed to identify and weigh the public benefits of the scheme233. However, it
should be noted that officers described the proposal as “finely balanced”234 and
that the Committee only voted to approve by 7 to 5235. That narrow decision
was on the basis of the Council’s assessment of heritage harm, which SBH takes
issue with.
307. In conclusion, it is submitted that there is no justification for departing from the
development plan. The Inspector is asked to recommend that the Secretary of
State refuses to grant planning permission for the application.
THE CASE FOR THE NORWICH SOCIETY (RULE 6 PARTY)236
308. Anglia Square is in the NCCCA, at the entrance to Magdalen Street which leads
to the historic core of Norwich. The massive and dense development proposed,
with its out-of-scale bulk, would significantly diminish the unique identity of the
city. The proposal meets neither national nor local planning guidance.
309. The Framework states that:
“The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the
planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect
of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and
helps make development acceptable to communities”237
Far from maintaining a strong sense of place, the proposal would create an
‘anywhere’ environment.
310. While judgements on what makes good design are somewhat subjective, the
Design South East (2017) review of a previous version of the scheme expressed
concern that it constituted overdevelopment and that it would not be possible to
resolve a scheme sensitively in this location with this level of density. The
review raised concerns about the way that the proposed buildings would relate
to the surrounding historic fabric, the extent of overshadowing of public spaces
and the proliferation of single aspect flats. That version of the scheme varied
very little from the current proposal, apart from the tower having now been
reduced from 25 storeys to 20. At the application stage the Design South East
review focussed on the tower. However, the revised scheme has done little to
mitigate the other concerns raised earlier in the process.
311. The Council’s PGN for Anglia Square states that any development should have a
clear relationship in built form with the surrounding area, which is clearly not
the case with the current proposal. It goes on to say that:
233 Paragraph 91 of WH12
234 Paragraph 604 of CD2.15
235 CD9.2
236 The closing submissions, which are summarised here, are at NS12
237 Paragraph 124 of the Framework
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 79
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
“the height and traditional character of buildings and streets to the north and
east of the site (most immediately Magdalen Street, St Augustine’s Street and
Gildencroft) needs to be respected in the redevelopment to ensure the
buildings, streets and their settings are not unduly dominated or harmed by the
new buildings. Proposals should achieve a density in keeping with the existing
character”238
312. The Council’s most recent policy for the area (the Norwich City Council Area
Action Plan) indicates that a minimum of 250 houses would be acceptable within
the Anglia Square site, less than a quarter of the number now being proposed.
The proposed density of 285 dwellings per hectare is grossly over-intensive,
being in excess of that for a well serviced urban area in London. It is totally
inappropriate for a local centre in Norwich. In the immediate vicinity of this site
the density ranges from 19 dwellings per hectare (around Oak Street) to 80 per
hectare (in Magdalen Street and the surrounding flatted courts such as
Magdalen Close). Whilst a density higher than the surrounding area may be
appropriate, it is clear that a jump in density of this magnitude will substantially
change the character of the area.
313. The high density has serious implications for the design quality of the scheme.
When assessed against the full 29 Building for Life criteria, rather than the 12
main questions used in the officers’ report, we contend that 9 would be marked
as negative. Concerns identified in NS’s Building for Life assessment239 include:
• service bays and car park accessed from the congested gyratory system at
Pitt Street;
• loss of Ann’s Walk, an existing pedestrian route between Cowgate and Pitt
Street;
• poor relationship to existing development around the edges of the site,
including discordant changes in scale;
• excessive parking provision, given that the site is well served by public
transport;
• the mix of one and two bedroom flats (and 9 houses) being proposed
would be poorly aligned with the need for a range of unit sizes identified in
the Strategic Housing Market Appraisal;
• the proposal is not distinctive from developments elsewhere (such as
Canary Wharf) and would not have any local identity;
• harmful impacts on numerous longer views;
• streets and spaces within the scheme would feel cavernous; and
• long single sided corridors to access individual flats, which would feel
oppressive.
238 CD2.11
239 Appended to Mr Boon’s proof (NS1/1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 80
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
314. The applicants suggest that the tower would be a beneficial waymarker, helping
to orientate people moving around the city. NS strongly disagrees with this
argument. The idea that people need a residential tower to orientate themselves
is absurd. Local people would know where they are anyway and visitors would
have no idea of the relationship of the tower to where they wish to go.
Economic considerations
315. The claimed economic benefits could be achieved by a less dense and better
designed development. This could provide a wider range of housing types,
attracting more well-off residents who would spend at least as much in the local
economy, even if they were fewer in number. The Office for National Statistics
estimates that the average household expenditure in 2018 was just under
£30,000 a year. This would suggest an annual spend of around £37 million for
the residents of the proposed scheme, near the top end of the Council’s
estimate. In view of the type of homes proposed, the lower end of the range
suggested by the Council would be more likely.
316. Crucially, a poorly designed scheme that is totally out of character with the
surrounding area would damage the vitality of the city centre by making
Norwich a less attractive place to work or visit. International research has
demonstrated that the quality of place has an impact on the local economy,
especially by its influence on the ability of businesses to recruit essential
specialist and professional staff who increasingly look for a good place to live
before searching for a job. For many local people on low incomes, the likely loss
of the value shopping currently available in Anglia Square could harm their
quality of life.
317. Visitor spending accounts for around 10% of the city’s GDP. Visitors are
attracted by the city’s rich heritage and lively centre. Anglia Square marks the
entrance to the city from the North Norfolk coast and the airport. It should give
a foretaste of the quality of modern architecture in Norwich that complements
its historic heritage. An alien tower and massive anywhere development is not
the first impression that the city should be giving. When approached from the
north, the bulk of the tower would often not be ameliorated by any decorative
detailing as it would be seen in silhouette against the sun.
Conclusions
318. NS recognises that Anglia Square is in desperate need of redevelopment.
However, replacing it with such a high density, bulky development is
unacceptable within the NCCCA. The proposed tower would intrude into a
skyline that is almost entirely free of tall buildings, other than those that serve a
religious or civic purpose. It would be preferable to leave the site vacant in the
expectation that a better proposal will come forward at some point. With such
excellent modern buildings as the Forum, Winnalls Yard student accommodation
and the Stirling Prize winning Goldsmith Street housing development, it is clear
that Norwich is capable of supporting good modern design.
319. Support for the scheme within the Council has not been overwhelming. The
officers’ report describes the recommendation for approval as being ‘finely
balanced’ and the committee itself only approved the scheme by 7 votes to 5.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 81
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
For these reasons, NS believes that the proposal meets neither national nor
local guidelines and should be refused.
THE CASE FOR NORWICH CYCLING CAMPAIGN (RULE 6 PARTY)240
General conclusions
320. CYC supports the objections by HE, SBH, NS and others regarding the height,
mass and density of the proposal. Whilst the news that priority will be given to
the removal of asbestos from Sovereign House is welcomed, there is concern
that this matter will be left to NCC to resolve. CYC welcomes the provisions in
the section 106 Agreement relating to cycle and pedestrian routes, although it is
regretted that this matter was not resolved by consultation before the Inquiry.
321. The Environment Bill 2020 passed its second reading on 26 February. It will now
pass to the Committee stage and to the House of Lords. The Bill states that,
when setting targets on air quality, the Secretary of State must seek advice
from independent persons with relevant expertise. An expert body should be
formed prior to the new Office of Environmental Protection to provide the
Secretary of State with advice on targets. This advice must be published and
will be subject to some pre-legislative scrutiny. The targets themselves are
unknown and may not be set until October 2022.
A sustainable site depends what you do with it
322. It has been suggested that Anglia Square is the most sustainable site in
Norwich, due to its proximity to the city centre and the potential for expanding
public transport. However, a sustainable site does not necessarily lead to a
sustainable development. That depends on the nature of the development that
takes place. CYC wants to see a truly sustainable development that is low
carbon, provides good housing meeting the needs of the city, fits the heritage
and historic character of the city and is healthy. This means reaching low levels
of air pollutants as quickly as possible. The proposal does not tackle air pollution
as quickly as possible, therefore it is not sustainable and would not be good for
Norwich.
323. It is clear from the annual average daily traffic data used for the air quality
assessment (AQA) that traffic would increase, particularly on the west and north
west side of the development241. The St Augustines Street gyratory is a key
transport feature which distributes traffic in this part of Norwich, from the south
and city centre, from the inner ring road and from the north (Aylsham Road and
Sprowston Road). Without the development, the clockwise flow of traffic would
increase slightly by 2031. With the development, traffic levels around the
gyratory would increase significantly.
324. There would be a 15.5% increase in traffic approaching the development area
down Edward Street (north), and a 53.6% increase in traffic approaching and
240 The closing submissions, which are summarised here, are at CYC14
241 Appendix B of Ms Hobson’s proof (WH8/3)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 82
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
leaving the car park in Edward Street (south). Other streets show increases too,
such as Pitt Street (9.6%)242.
325. The western and north western edges of the site are close to locations where air
quality is of most concern, including the proposed ground floor dwellings in
Block B, the existing flats at 8 to 22 Edward Street and Dalymond Court and
existing dwellings on St Augustines Street, which is already congested at peak
times. The annual NO objective applies to numbers 13 and 52 St Augustines
2
Street, which have been monitored by the Council for years243. DT11 has never
been legal. Even with the low bias factor used for the 2018 data, it still
measured 44.4 µg/m3. For the previous 5 years it was always above 48 µg/m3.
The Council’s uncorrected 2019 data has it as 52 µg/m3. These are serious on-
going exceedances.
326. The proposal would attract traffic to this part of the city. It would increase traffic
levels in St Augustines Street by over 8%, or over 13% if background traffic
growth is included. This is not appropriate or sustainable. It would be preferable
to refuse consent for this proposal and allow planners and other developers to
come forward with a design for a truly sustainable development.
What is the destination for air quality?
327. CYC called Dr Ashley Mills to give evidence on public health issues so that the
wider issues of human health could be considered. The Inquiry heard conclusive
evidence on the medical impacts of air pollution. It also heard that the current
regulatory levels under EU and UK law, and the World Health Organisation
recommendations, do not offer sufficient protection. The Royal College of
Physicians report “Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution”244
states:
“Neither the concentration limits set by government, nor the World Health
Organisation’s air quality guidelines, define levels of exposure that are entirely
safe for the whole population.”
328. This report was written by a committee of the foremost UK medical and
scientific experts on the impacts of air pollution. The Secretary of State cannot
ignore them. The Inquiry also heard evidence from a local resident regarding
concerns within the community about air quality in the area around Anglia
Square. Residents are concerned that the proposal would lead to an increase in
traffic which would, in turn, increase pollution. It is those who are old, young, or
vulnerable with some illness who are most at risk and for whom there is no safe
level of air pollution.
329. The destination is for air pollutants to be eliminated completely. In contrast, the
Inquiry has only heard from the applicants about whether pollutants can be
brought to current regulatory levels, despite the evidence that these levels give
little protection to public health. A demonstration of compliance is just the first
242 Further information on increases in particular streets is provided in a table on page 4 of
CYC14
243 DT9 and DT11
244 CD15.11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 83
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
step on a long road. The destination for air quality must be considered as well,
bearing in mind that the Framework states that245:
“Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is
appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including
cumulative effects) of pollution on health…”
330. This wider perspective on air quality matters underwrites the need for a
trustworthy scientific process and for a precautionary approach in assessing the
air quality impacts of the development. However, CYC does not just rely on the
wider perspective. For reasons set out below, CYC considers that the proposal
does not even pass the first step of compliance with regulations and planning
guidance.
History of air quality in this application
331. Version 2 of the AQA was reported to the planning committee in December
2018. This predicted that by 2028, with the development in place, there would
be increased levels of NO at all but one of the 9 receptors modelled. Receptor
2
H, outside the ground floor of Block B (where the NO annual objective limit of
2
40 µg/m3 applies) was modelled to be 59.0 µg/m3. Two receptors were found to
exceed the 1 hour mean objective of 60 µg/m3. Receptor B on Magdalen Street
was modelled to be 63.4 µg/m3 and receptor G, which is close to residential
properties at 8 to 22 Edward Street and Dalymond Court, was modelled to be
70.6 µg/m3.
332. These breaches are of significant concern on public health grounds. However, no
indication was given to the planning committee that this should indicate an
unacceptable level of NO . CYC considers that immense complacency was shown
2
by the Council and the applicants at this stage. It is only due to the call-in that
the issue has been examined more closely. This complacency continued in the
applicants’ Statement of Case (August 2019) which states that246:
“the modelling predicts that in all locations (with the exception of location C) the
development (2028) will lead to an increase in NO concentrations … the annual
2
NO target is predicted to be exceeded in both the ‘with’ and ‘without’ 2028
2
development scenarios”
The associated public health risks are acknowledged:
“In locations where exceedance of the hourly NO level is predicted, there is the
2
risk that the development could give rise to a wider detrimental public health
impact”
333. As of August 2019 the applicants could have chosen to amend the proposal to
reduce its impact on air pollutants, such that in the target year (now 2031)
levels with the development would be less than levels without the development.
For example, the transport plan could have been changed and the amount of
residential car parking reduced. These options have not even been tested.
245 Paragraph 180
246 Inspector’s note – the submission refers to the applicants’ Statement of Case but the
references to paragraphs 518 and 521 appear to come from the officers’ report (CD2.15)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 84
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
334. Everything that has happened since air quality became an item on the agenda
for this Inquiry amounts to a retrospective campaign by the Council and
applicants to do a complete U-turn on their original positions. Three AQAs have
been presented, which has been confusing for all concerned. The one thing that
remains true throughout is that air pollutant levels, both NO and PM , are
2 10
always greater with the development than without.
The quality of the modelling
335. Each new model has further confused the issues around air quality. This can be
seen from the variation between AQA results based on 2018 monitoring data
and 2019 monitoring data247. According to the applicants, the only difference is
the input data from the Council’s monitoring. There is huge variation in the
modelled values for each receptor, with 4 of the 14 being more than 10 µg/m3
different (equivalent to 25% of the annual mean limit value for NO ).
2
336. This shows that the outputs for any data point are significantly dependent on
the input set of monitored data used to seed the model, proving that:
• the selection of input calibration data is crucial; and
• changing the input calibration data changes the outputs and renders
comparisons between different air quality models meaningless.
337. The input data has changed three times during this process, demonstrating the
‘garbage in, garbage out’ principle before our very eyes. The applicants’ own
evidence shows that all the models are inconsistent with each other. Despite the
data showing these huge internal inconsistencies, the Secretary of State is
asked to accept that all the models are correct in different aspects and that
different data items from each can be picked out to prove points about air
quality, regulatory compliance and ultimately public health.
338. CYC concludes that none of the models can be trusted. The quality of the work
is low and decisions around compliance and public health cannot be trusted
based on any of this data.
Inherent optimism in the modelling
Extremely optimistic bias factors applied
339. CYC has particular concerns about AQA Version 3, the model presented in the
applicants’ evidence248, relating to the optimism inherent in the modelling.
Those concerns were set out in opening and in rebuttal evidence249. The Council
and the applicants submitted a joint note on bias adjustment factors250. The
following points are made in response:
• The joint note fails to mention that the Council has historically rejected
using a local bias adjustment factor due to the co-location site being
247 There is a summary table at page 8 of CYC14 which presents figures drawn from WH24
248 Ms Hobson’s proof (WH8/1)
249 CYC10 and CYC11
250 ID17
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 85
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
described as a canyon like street. There is no evidence that the site has
changed.
• The joint note is wrong to say that CYC suggested a bias adjustment factor
of 0.92 based on an outdated spreadsheet. In fact the source of that figure
is the Council’s 2019 Annual Status Report.
• CYC’s note sought to present concerns about the method for generating
national bias factors, which can be skewed by even one outlier result. The
joint note ignores this concern and refers to a national bias factor of 0.89
which is itself skewed by bad data. The figure is not robust and cannot be
relied on.
• The joint note fabricates a reason for CYC’s change of approach in relation
to the selection of bias factors. In fact CYC only investigated the national
bias factor spreadsheets at the time the SoCG was being drafted. This was
new evidence which, correctly, led to an updated position.
• The summary of CYC’s position on the use of the national spreadsheet is
misleading. CYC does not advocate arbitrarily excluding one piece of data.
The fundamental point is that the whole national bias factor spreadsheet
system is untrustworthy and sorely in need of review by DEFRA.
• Whilst it is right to say that CYC rejects both the local bias factor and the
national factors, this situation arises because the DEFRA system is
untrustworthy. Professor Peckham and Dr Mills have already shown that
the tool improves accuracy in around 70% of cases but degrades it around
30%. Where it degrades accuracy it tends to reduce the original NO
2
measurement, making it more optimistic, as in this case.
• The Norwich 2019 Annual Status Report illustrates that there is no
gatekeeping on data fed into the DEFRA spreadsheet. This is another factor
enabling untrustworthy national bias factors to be generated.
• CYC’s conclusion that neither local nor national bias factors can be trusted
is based on the evidence, it is not a deliberately awkward or arcane
position.
• The crucial implication for the Secretary of State is that the Norwich 2019
Annual Status Report, and both the local and national bias factors within it,
cannot be trusted. Nor can AQA Version 3 which is based upon it.
• CYC accepts that the Council followed guidance in LAQM TG16251 in
selecting a bias factor. However, the Council has not been placed in a good
position by the DEFRA guidance, as the evidence shows that neither bias
factor can be trusted.
340. Turning to the local bias factor, it has been noted above that the Council
deviated from its approach in previous years in selecting a local bias factor for
its 2019 Annual Status Report. It also deviated from clear trends in previous
years:
251 CD11.37
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 86
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• Local bias adjustment factors in the years 2013 (2012 data) to 2018 (2017
data) have all been in the range 1.04 to 1.14. The 2019 (2018 data) value
of 0.86 is out of kilter. The issues with rogue data252 clearly play a part in
this deviation from previous years.
• The national bias factors chosen in Norwich for the years 2013 (2012 data)
to 2018 (2017) have all been between 0.96 to 1.02. The 2019 (2018 data)
value of 0.86 is out of kilter in this respect too.
341. Two examples show the effect of the Council’s choice. If the national bias factor
of 0.92 (taken from the 2019 Annual Status Report) was chosen instead of the
local bias factor, the outputs of AQA Version 3 would have been 7% higher. If a
national bias factor of 0.98 (which is within the range of factors used by the
Council between 2013 and 2018) was chosen, the outputs of AQA Version 3
would have been 14% higher253.
342. CYC submits that the Secretary of State cannot ignore the fact that a local bias
factor was chosen which was out of kilter with previous factors used by the
Council. Moreover, given the fiasco with the national bias factors for 2019 (2018
data), there is no way to assess the validity of either the local or national bias
factor. The uncomfortable conclusion is that the data taken forward to AQA
Version 3 cannot be trusted.
ADMS Model configuration
343. The applicant has taken note of CYC’s observations regarding street canyons
and has re-run the model. However, it was also pointed out that the control
parameters which calibrate the meteorological data were set at the default
values254. The surface roughness factor was set the same for the reference
meteorological site (Norwich airport) and the modelled area. In this case the
setting of the default parameters creates higher wind speeds, and
correspondingly greater dispersion of pollutants, at Anglia Square. This
introduces another optimistic skew to the data. Further model runs would be
required at the correct settings to establish what impact this has on the results.
The precautionary principle and emissions factors
344. The applicants argue that the recent example at Wealden sets a precedent for
the use of emission factors. At Wealden, the use of CURED emission factors was
accepted by the Inspector and Natural England as a precautionary approach.
However, it does not follow that the use of CURED here would be precautionary.
The scientific quality and integrity of the air quality models is very different. The
Wealden AQA was undertaken by leading consultants Air Quality Consultants
and broke new scientific ground in modelling a complex habitat. It runs to some
500 pages (with a 500 page appendix) which gives an idea of the depth of the
undertaking.
345. The key attribute of the Wealden AQA is that there was a single consistent
model, in contrast to the situation at Anglia Square where there have been
252 CYC11
253 The graph at page 9 of CYC11 shows the impacts of these choices
254 Section 6.3 of Dr Boswell’s rebuttal (CYC1/4)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 87
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
three differently configured models giving diverse results. The Wealden model
was calibrated with 106 reference diffusion tubes (compared with 3 in Anglia
Square AQA Version 3) measured for 24 months (Anglia Square AQA Version 2
only measured for 3 months). The Wealden model was extremely robust and it
was therefore reasonable for results using the CURED emission factors to be
considered as a precautionary sensitivity test.
346. It would not be reasonable to transfer this assessment of a precautionary
approach to Anglia Square. In the current case optimism accumulates through
the modelling, which must be considered as a whole. The outputs255 based on
CURED are subject to this optimism. They cannot therefore be taken as a
precautionary assessment. The Anglia Square modelling is no comparator to the
Wealden modelling. Given the level of uncertainty and the deviation of the
outputs from the different Anglia Square models, it would not be scientifically
credible to accept CURED as precautionary in this case. Moreover, it has never
been the case that one specific situation automatically generalises to other
situations, each case should be looked at on its merits.
Conclusions on modelling
347. The retrospective campaign by the Council and the applicants to do a complete
U-turn on their position up to December 2019 has been unsuccessful. Although
more modelling and more evidence has been provided through the inquiry
process, this has not narrowed the differences between the parties. It has done
the opposite. The latest AQA proves CYC’s point that the quality of calibrating
input data is key to the modelling. The models create a diverging set of results
and clearly demonstrate the garbage in, garbage out effect. There is huge
uncertainty in the modelling that has been carried out. It cannot be trusted.
Overall conclusions
348. The only singular truth is that every model shows that air pollutant levels (both
NO and particulates) are always greater with the development than without.
2
This results primarily from increases in traffic. A development which sought to
reduce traffic levels in the area would bring down air pollutant levels faster and
would thus meet the legal requirement to reduce air quality as quickly as
possible. This development does not.
349. It is not possible to reach a clear, trustworthy conclusion that legal levels of air
quality will be delivered with the development. Nor is it possible to determine by
when legal levels could be delivered. The air quality modelling presented has
been confusing and the key issue of optimism across all the modelling has not
been addressed by the applicant.
350. CYC submits that the development does not meet the test in the Gladman
case256 that:
“In different circumstances, and on different evidence, an inspector might be
able to assess the impact of a particular development on local air quality by
taking into account the content of a national air quality plan, compliant with the
255 As shown in the summary tables at WH24
256 CD15.117
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 88
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Air Quality Directive, which puts specific measures in place and thus enables a
clear conclusion to be reached on the effect of those measures.”
In passing, these are words of Lord Justice Lindblom who recently made a
historic judgement on Heathrow at the Court of Appeal.
351. The proposal does not even meet the first step of demonstrating that regulatory
compliance can be achieved on the path towards the destination for healthy air
quality. However, given the very clear health impacts of lower than regulatory
levels of air pollutants (both NO and particulates) and the Framework’s
2
requirement that development decisions should take account of the likely effects
of pollution on health, CYC submits that the Secretary of State would be
justified to go beyond the first step. Despite the overwhelming evidence from
Professor Peckham and Dr Mills, the Council and applicants show no inclination
to go beyond just trying, albeit not conclusively, to meet regulatory compliance.
The application must be refused on the basis that the crucial first step has not
conclusively been met.
OTHER PARTIES WHO APPEARED AT THE INQUIRY
Norwich Green Party257
Heritage
352. The height, bulk and design would be harmful to the settings of numerous
heritage assets and to the NCCCA. Loss of the locally listed buildings at Pitt
Street would sweep away the final vestiges of the former historic
neighbourhood. The medieval street pattern, including open spaces, markets
and river crossings, gives the historic core its distinctive shape and is a key
characteristic of the NCCCA. The route between the former Saxon market at
Tombland and the junction of Colegate/Magdalen Street is at the heart of the
historic street pattern, including numerous heritage assets. These historic
streets are relatively unharmed by modern development, such that we can feel
a connection to our forebears who travelled them over the past 1,000 years.
The applicant has underestimated the impacts. The cumulative harm would be
at the high end of less than substantial, if not substantial, and would merit
refusal of the application.
353. The intact street pattern reflects the Anglo-Scandinavian pre-conquest town and
the Norman town. The north/south axis including Magdalen Street and Wensum
Street is an ancient route, possibly Roman, with several medieval churches
standing on sites of pre-conquest churches. Contrary to the applicants’
assertion, the street pattern has been relatively fixed since the middle ages. Dr
Miele focussed on the main character areas rather than considering this key
characteristic of the NCCCA. He has not assessed the full impact of a colossal
modern tower, interrupting the skyline, on important heritage assets along this
route. Mr Webster found major harm to the St Clements Church/Fye Bridge
Street/Wensum Street group.
257 Summary of comments made orally by Cllr Carlo and Dr Boswell and their respective notes
at NGP1, NGP10 and CD16.8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 89
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
354. The tower is intended to act as a waymarker. Its impact would be felt across the
historic city. The officers’ report was ambivalent about three of the four
arguments in favour of a tall building, although waymarking was accepted as a
benefit. The tower and associated blocks would isolate the historic city beyond
St Augustine’s Church. In seeking to emulate the city landmarks to the south,
the applicants are endeavouring to re-engineer the historic character of the
north city. This would contradict the purpose of the NCCCA. Norwich over the
water has a rich variety of historic buildings and development has remained low
rise apart from 19th century industrial buildings along the river. Overall, the
impact on numerous heritage assets and the NCCCA would be at the high end of
less than substantial harm. The NCCCA would neither be preserved nor
enhanced.
Housing
355. JCS Policy 4 sets a single affordable housing target (33%) for the whole plan
area. This target is outdated and has failed to deliver enough affordable
housing, particularly in Norwich. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment
(SHMA)258 provides a robust and strategic evidence base for appraising the
development. The overall need for affordable housing in Norwich is 38.3% of
the total need, significantly higher than the JCS policy suggests. Both the SHMA
data and the housing queue data for the NR3 postcode indicate that more than
25% of affordable homes should be 2 bedroom units. The delivery of just 10%
affordable housing is very poor compared with the JCS requirement and
extremely poor compared with the need identified in the SHMA.
356. The SHMA data shows that 66% of 1 bedroom flats and 51% of 2 bedroom flats
need to be affordable. The affordable flats proposed would almost all be 1
bedroom flats (plus 9 houses). The proposal would not even deliver 10% of the
affordable housing required because 2 bed units make a greater contribution to
meeting housing need than 1 bedroom units. This amounts to a hidden subsidy
to the developer. Moreover, no housing would be delivered in the first phase so
the proposal would jam up the housing queue for at least another 5 years.
357. The planning committee was led to believe that the scheme would make a
significant contribution to the need for 1 and 2 bedroom flats up to 2036.
However, this is only true for market housing. It would make only a 3.4%
contribution to the need for affordable 1 and 2 bedroom flats. The proposal
would create a structural imbalance between affordable and market housing in
Norwich which could not be corrected by other developments during the plan
period. The ability to meet the needs identified in the SHMA would be
undermined, contrary to the housing policies set out in the Framework259.
Climate change and energy
358. The Framework states that the planning system should support the transition to
a low carbon future, contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
support renewable and low carbon energy260. The proposal lacks a positive
258 CD2.21
259 Paragraphs 59, 61, 64 and 65 of the Framework
260 Paragraphs 148, 150 and 151 of the Framework
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 90
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
environmental vision that would support these objectives. JCS Policy 3 requires
10% of energy in new developments to be from renewable or decentralised
sources. This policy is out of date and much higher requirements are achieved
in other plans. An aggregate energy saving of 23% is proposed. The renewable
energy element comes from air source heat pumps for the commercial units.
The renewable energy level for the housing (photovoltaic panels on the 9
houses) is much less than 10% and does not meet Policy 3.
359. The Chancellor’s 2019 Spring statement sought to phase out gas for domestic
heating with no new gas installations from 2025, yet the scheme proposes 1200
gas boilers. Other options should be considered, including ground source heat
pumps, electric heating and greater use of photovoltaic panels. The proposal
should be refused because it is contrary to the Framework and the housing
element does not meet JCS Policy 3. Gas should not be installed in any of the
units.
Other objections
360. The commercial retail units would threaten the distinctive shopping offer of
Magdalen Street and harm a thriving artistic community. The level of parking
(1,540 spaces in total) is excessive in such an accessible location. The additional
traffic generated would increase community severance, air pollution and carbon
emissions. The scheme lacks play space for children and green space for
residents. There would be excessive hard surfacing and a pathetic biodiversity
gain.
Conclusion
361. Norwich has always accommodated change. Destruction on the scale of Anglia
Square is not typical. That damage could be mitigated by sympathetic
redevelopment but this proposal would not do that. Overall, the benefits of the
scheme would be considerably outweighed by the disbenefits. NGP wants to see
a development where housing, shops, employment and green spaces are
blended to create a strong community that fits with its surroundings. It should
be ready for net zero carbon. The Goldsmith Street housing development, which
won the Stirling Prize for 100 social houses built to passivhaus standards, is an
example of what can be done. Norwich is often said to be ‘A Fine City’ – it
should not be allowed to turn into ‘A Once Fine City’.
Norwich Over the Water Society261
362. The existing pagoda was constructed in the 1980s to improve the attractiveness
of the square and has been popular with the public, being used for plays,
musicians, charity events and carol singing. There is no equivalent facility in the
scheme. Losing this all-weather facility would be a significant loss and would
harm the commercial potential of the square by discouraging its use in wet
weather. The proposals make insufficient provision for security. The flyover is
poorly lit and puts people off. A security office placed next to the flyover,
together with adequate lighting, would encourage people to visit the square.
More secure cycle parking is needed for those visiting or working at Anglia
261 Summary of comments made orally by Mr Scruton and others and in NOTW1.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 91
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Square. Car parking should be provided underground, with computer controlled
car stacking avoiding the need for vehicles to drive round in search of a space.
The Under the Flyover scheme looks promising and should go ahead at an early
stage.
363. There has been a lack of regard for the culture of the area. It is unlikely that a
new cinema company would be interested in this location. This presents an ideal
opportunity to replace the Opera House in Norwich which was demolished some
50 years ago. There is also an opportunity for an art gallery, which would
complement the Castle Museum. The artists currently based in Gildengate
House should be accommodated in the development. The name of the square
should be changed to something that is truly locally distinctive. Possibilities
include Stump Cross Square (for reasons of local history), Hansard Square and
The Squares Over the Water.
Hugo Malik262
364. Mr Malik is a former Norwich City councillor and member of the planning
committee. Norwich is not a wealthy city in an economic sense although it is
rich in many other ways. It is built on communities that thrive in Victorian and
Edwardian terraces, spacious suburban bungalows and fantastic low-rise Council
estates. These communities overlap in Norwich’s historic lanes, vibrant artistic
scene, outdoor market (the largest in Europe) and independent cafes and
restaurants. NS was correct to point out that the proposed density would be
four times that thought to be acceptable in Leeds. The developers told the
Council they would only proceed if they could apply for exemption from CIL.
This would amount to some £8.8 million which could have been put into local
infrastructure and services. Together with the HIF funding, this amounts to over
£22 million of public money. Even so, the scheme is only marginally viable.
There is good chance that it will end up as a white elephant or a half finished
empty tower.
365. Norwich has a proud history of supplying affordable housing. However, over the
last five years private developments have regularly been granted planning
permission despite being in breach of development plan policies on affordable
housing. This has mainly been on grounds of viability and claimed economic
benefits. The current proposal is almost entirely flatted. This mix does not meet
the housing needs assessment and conflicts with the housing policies of the
Framework. The 120 affordable units amount to less than 10% of the dwellings,
compared with a policy requirement for 33%. The quality of the homes is also a
matter of concern, as identified by Design South East who highlighted limited
access to daylight and natural ventilation and corridors that mostly lack external
windows.
366. There are numerous discrepancies in the officers’ report which concludes that
either approval or refusal could be justified. This was hardly a ringing
endorsement. The report was hardly glanced at by the planning committee.
Significant concerns on behalf of Design South East were only briefly touched
on. The summary of the Council’s heritage evidence to this Inquiry is that the
harm (in heritage terms) is greater than that claimed by the applicants and
262 Summary of comments made orally and in HM1 and OD23
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 92
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
greater than the heritage benefits of the proposal. This is an appalling
application which breaches every policy in the JCS and DM Plan. It would be
vastly detrimental to the heritage of Norwich and would set a national precedent
for a dystopian future for similar sized towns and cities.
New Anglia Local Economic Partnership263
367. New Anglia Local Economic Partnership supports the application. Anglia Square
presents a significant opportunity to create an iconic skyline for Norwich which
would reflect the modern ambitions of a digitally creative city. The scheme
would provide a significant number of construction and supply chain jobs during
the construction phase and a broader mix of employment in the longer term.
Norwich benefits from strong technical, digital and creative sectors which are
growing fast. The scheme would drive jobs and investment, helping to deliver
the Norfolk and Suffolk Economic Strategy.
Cathedral, Magdalen and St Augustine’s Forum264
368. Cathedral, Magdalen and St Augustine’s Forum (CMSA) represents residents,
businesses and community interests across the north city. It opposes the
application, which would be out of keeping with the historic mixed-use nature of
the city centre. The proposal would undermine the present role of Anglia Square
in supporting the community and foreclose on the opportunity for appropriate
regeneration of the wider area as a thriving mixed creative industries quarter.
The scheme is overly dense and its negative impacts have been severely
underestimated. It would inflict substantial harm on the historic environment
and CMSA supports others who have given evidence on this matter. CMSA was
set up to initiate a neighbourhood plan for the north city. It offered to facilitate
dialogue between the developer and the community. That offer was not taken
up but the developer agreed to receive a community brief to articulate the
aspirations of the community in terms of use, scale and place making. CMSA
undertook a community design weekend in January 2018, engaging local people
in a co-design exercise. The resulting community vision was submitted to the
Council and to the Inquiry265. It is commended to the Secretary of State.
369. Previous proposals were overtaken by changes in the retail sector. Following the
property crash the site was frozen within Ireland’s National Asset Management
Agency. The new owners have promoted a scheme which is an opportunistic
response to the delivery of housing numbers rather than addressing the needs
of the local area. These include the needs of those engaged in the creative,
entrepreneurial and cultural industries, (including live/work/sell
accommodation), older people and young families wishing to trade up from
Victorian terraced houses. The way in which the scheme is designed makes it
inherently unaffordable to the local market, such that it would not contribute to
building a strong and vibrant community. It would be a dormitory development.
370. Traders are concerned about the impact on existing small scale shops and niche
businesses. The scheme fails to respond to the needs of the growing digital and
263 Summary of comments made orally by Ellen Goodwin and in CD21.33
264 Summary of comments made orally by Mr McGlyn and in CD21.5
265 CD21.6
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 93
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
creative sector, due to an unsympathetic development format and a lack of
place making. The shops at Anglia Square serve the needs of the local
community well and are highly cherished. A standard mixed use shopping centre
would compete with the Castle Quarter and Chapelfield centres. The proposed
units would be ill matched to retaining and growing the local convenience retail
component. The LDC designation needs to be urgently re-examined in the light
of changing retail trends. The proposal would conflict with development plan
policies relating to sustainable development, amenity, design, heritage, energy
and climate change.
John Howkins266
371. Although Anglia Square has the scope for transformational change this scheme
would not deliver that. Less than 20% of the workforce now works 9 to 5 in an
office. The national emphasis is on creative, digital and technological innovation.
The developer seems to have no awareness of the needs of these sectors. The
scheme would not be attractive to these people, who look for low rise flexible
spaces suitable for work and living. Barriers between uses are becoming blurred
and the need is for flexibility. This would be a brutal and insensitive form of
development, demonstrating a lack of appreciation of Norwich as a historic city
and as a commercial, social and cultural ecosystem. It ignores the fact that the
adjacent streets have developed a vibrant economy based on independent
shops and restaurants and a growing creative hub. The proposed design and
density are in direct contradiction to this kind of local development.
Dr Judith Ford267
372. Nowhere else has such a diverse selection of independent eateries as Magdalen
Street. The independent shops are equally diverse, with a wide range of food
and non-food products. These are proper High Street shops that the rest of the
country seems unable to support. This is an eclectic and vibrant multi-cultural
area that should be supported. In contrast, the proposal is for a soulless
London-style development. The 10 and 12 storey flats in Blocks F and G would
create a wind tunnel. Natural light would be very poor to the lower flats,
resulting in depressing living conditions. Many of these flats would be accessed
by long internal corridors. The proposal makes no contribution to community
facilities.
373. The scale of the buildings would be out of proportion to the surroundings. This
would be a dormitory area, destined for the buy-to-let market, with many
transient residents. It would not be a community. There is no need for more
shops, there are already two shopping malls in the city. Anglia Square itself is
the best outdoor performance space in Norwich, being covered and sheltered
from the wind. Plays put on there have been very well attended. This is not an
area that needs to be brought upmarket. The existing shops are flourishing
because they are affordable to local people. The tower blocks of the 60s should
tell us that this is not the way to go. We could do so much better. The area
needs a greener, more exciting future, building on the real strengths of what is
already there.
266 Summary of comments made orally and in CD21.37
267 Summary of comments made orally and in OD20
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 94
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Dr Alison Dow268
374. There are dramatic inequalities in health, employment, financial stability and
even life expectancy within Norwich. Earnings in Norwich are lower than the
regional average. Despite the image of Norwich as a dynamic city with a
prestigious university, a teaching hospital and a world-class research park, it is
the second most deprived local authority area in the east of England. The three
wards closest to Anglia Square have the highest levels of deprivation in
Norwich, leading to increased incidence of disease, drug use and child
safeguarding issues. Anglia Square is the ‘go to’ destination for the local
community, offering affordable shopping and a social hub. The proposal is
disrespectful to local residents. It would bring only high density, small units (not
conducive to good health), high priced shops and very little affordable housing.
This is a development that would exclude local people and do nothing to
improve health outcomes in the wider community.
Ian Gibson
375. Mr Gibson was Member of Parliament for Norwich North for 20 years. In general,
the public have not responded much to this Inquiry process. However, there is
great opposition to this scheme in the wider community. There was an amazing
response to a recent play staged in Anglia Square. Norwich is not the same as
London and comparisons with the Shard, as a catalyst for regeneration, are not
relevant here. The Forum is a successful modern development within the
historic city. It has worked because of the particular uses, including the BBC,
that it accommodates. Historically, north Norwich has been disadvantaged
compared with the south of the city, for example in relation to access to higher
education and health facilities. For many years Council investment has been
diverted to the south. People here are worse off and feel powerless. Norwich is
effectively two cities. The proposal contains minimal affordable housing and
would not deliver the things that local people want and need. There is fierce
opposition to the crude 20 storey tower block. This is something that no other
historic city in England would even contemplate.
Joanna Smith
376. Ms Smith spoke first on behalf of Clive Lewis MP. It is accepted that Anglia
Square needs investment but this proposal is unacceptable. The Chapelfield
shopping centre makes adequate provision for national retail chains. Something
more local is needed at Anglia Square. Norwich is a living and evolving city
where there is a delicate balance between new and old. This would be an
insensitive and characterless scheme. It would not represent good quality or
sustainable development. The developer states that the proposal would not be
viable without exemption from CIL. Viability is being used cynically as a lever for
an oversized, poorly designed scheme that would provide only limited affordable
housing. It would do nothing for the long term well-being of the area. The
Goldsmith Street development sets a standard that should be followed for
sustainable and beautiful development.
268 Summary of comments made orally and in OD21
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 95
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
377. Ms Smith then spoke in a personal capacity. This area is already meeting the
needs of its people. The Council is desperate to replace an eyesore but local
people do not want this development, which would tower over St Augustines
Street. The traffic generated would cause gridlock in surrounding streets. The
public spaces would be in shadows, rather than being light and sunny. The flats
would be served by long, dark corridors. This would not be a people friendly
place, nor would it create a new community. This part of Norwich has already
suffered from wartime bombing and 1960’s planning. It must not see a third
wave of destruction. The city deserves better.
Norfolk Gardens Trust269
378. The Trust is concerned about the settings of the Grade II* Catton Hall Park, the
Grade II* Waterloo Park and views from Mousehold Heath and Kett’s Heights.
Catton Hall Park was the first park landscaped by Humphry Repton, who used
the Cathedral spire as a key feature in his design. Waterloo Park was the last of
the parks designed by Captain Arnold Sandys-Winsch. The centrepiece of the
park is a listed pavilion from where there are magnificent views across the city.
The Cathedral spire stands out in views from the upper path. The proposal
would be in view, especially in the winter, rivalling the view of the Cathedral
from the heart of the park. The prospects from Mousehold Heath and Kett’s
Heights have inspired numerous works of art. The proposal would forever
destroy these famous views. An unfortunate precedent would be set. The
standard of excellence demonstrated by the Goldsmith Street development
should be extended to this site.
Jan McLachlan
379. Up and down the country there are examples of gentrification at the expense of
established communities. This is multi-cultural working class community. Anglia
Square may not be pretty but people can afford to shop there. With
homelessness on the increase and over 4,000 on the housing waiting list there
is a great need for truly affordable housing. A completely different type of
development is needed here.
Cllr Martin Schmierer
380. Cllr Schmierer represents Mancroft ward on Norwich City Council. Whilst Anglia
Square is in a sorry state there is a risk of repeating the mistakes of the past.
Regeneration must meet the needs of residents and local businesses. This
proposal would do neither. With so much public money going into the scheme
through HIF and CIL relief it is despicable that so little affordable housing would
be delivered. There would be no green spaces for the community. Roof gardens
do not meet the policy requirements of DM Plan Policies DM3 or DM8. Off-site
space, on the other side of a busy road, does not make up for the lack of space
on site. The height of the scheme would result in overshadowing of adjoining
streets.
381. Paragraph 85 of the Framework states that planning policies should look at least
10 years ahead. There is a crisis on the High Street with even major department
269 Summary of comments made orally by Peter Woodrow and in OD22
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 96
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
stores struggling with the trend towards online shopping. There has been a loss
of retail space at Castle Quarter. The proposal would be detrimental to vitality
because it would compete with the existing shopping centres. The existing
shops at Anglia Square are well used and serve a local function but it is
questionable whether there will be demand for the new shops.
382. Norwich has an iconic skyline which is, in the main, low rise. The 20 storey
residential tower would in no way equate to the Cathedral. It is not just the
tower that is of concern. The mass and height of the surrounding blocks would
dominate the area. The very high density of the scheme would conflict with
DM12. The design is disappointing and pays no regard to the character of the
NCCCA. The PGN identifies Anglia Square as a negative feature. This scheme
would be a missed opportunity to reconnect the site to its surroundings. It is
necessary to listen to the community and go back to the drawing board.
Ian Couzens270
383. Mr Couzens is a former Councillor and Leader of Norwich City Council. The
massive scale and bulk of the scheme would be out of keeping, particularly the
tower which would impact on the skyline and degrade the setting of historic
buildings. Norwich has a long and successful record of city centre regeneration
projects which fit well in their surroundings. In this case there are many
objectors including community groups and civic organisations. It was rash of
Homes England to ignore their own guidelines which state that local support is
needed where HIF funding is awarded.
384. The Council considers that the scheme would bring major economic benefits,
such as to outweigh the effects on the historic environment. The reports focus
on deprivation within the Council’s administrative area. However, Norwich has
long outgrown its boundaries. In adjoining parts of Broadland and South Norfolk
there are thriving business parks, low unemployment and significant housing
growth. It is misleading to compare employment in the construction sector in
Norwich with the regional average. In reality construction labour is highly
mobile. There may be around 18,000 working in construction across the three
local authority areas. The scheme would have a marginal impact on construction
employment. Turning to the operational phase, total jobs in hotels, shops and
leisure facilities are governed by spending power. Over time, it is likely that the
jobs position would be neutral, whether or not the scheme is built. Moreover,
the very concept of an LDC looks dangerous when the bricks and mortar retail
sector is going through such convulsions.
385. There have been dire warnings that not proceeding with the scheme would send
the wrong message to investors. However, property developers will get a clear
message that poor design is unacceptable and will come back with more
appropriate proposals. Businesses seeking new premises would consider a whole
range of priorities and it is hard to see how the future of Anglia Square would be
a determining factor. Norwich is not bad at retaining graduates, even though
starting salaries are low. Graduates find the city attractive and are keen to stay
if they can. There is a need to attract higher value jobs but this does not require
such a radical change in the built environment. If the scheme does not proceed
270 Summary of comments made orally and in OD36
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 97
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
the impact on the economy would be insignificant. However, if it does proceed,
the impact on the built environment would be dramatic and destructive.
Norwich Conservative Federation271
386. The proposal would be wholly out of place within the city walls of Norwich. The
evidence of HE and SBH is fully supported. There should be greater ambition to
create destination architecture. The city has an abundance of one bedroom
apartments. Creating over 1,200 flats lacks social balance. Such schemes are
designed as investment vehicles, not for local ownership. A more specific
assessment of housing demand is needed. The alternative schemes put forward
show that around 650 residential units could be built in an acceptable way.
There is no need for a further 600 units to meet housing requirements across
the Greater Norwich area.
387. The Council’s evidence on economic development shows little understanding of
how to achieve appropriate solutions. There is no market need for the type of
commercial space proposed. The demand is for small, flexible, cheap start-up
units. This project would do nothing to build a stronger or more competitive
Norwich. The proposed retail spaces fail to respond to the needs of the
economy. Existing large retail spaces are at risk with the moves towards online
retailing. Creating retail space that competes with the city centre will simply
cannibalise the existing market. The attempt to create a competing retail centre
in this secondary area (rather than complementary retail/commercial areas) is
not appropriate and conflicts with the Framework in this regard.
388. The proposal is not sustainable, either at an environmental or a social level,
with low quality retail jobs and a limited housing offer. The alternative visions
put forward by CMSA and HE show that there are less harmful ways of achieving
housing delivery and economic growth. There is an opportunity here to create a
thriving new quarter of human scale. Overall, the proposal would drive a coach
and horses through the Framework, the Greater Norwich Local Plan, the JCS and
the DM Plan. It is impossible to see how this project passes any of the tests in
the recent document ‘Living with beauty, promoting health, well-being and
sustainable growth’. It should be rejected.
Michael Innes272
389. Mr Innes is an architect who has worked in Norwich for many years. Norwich
has a unique physical and cultural identity. It has 1,560 listed buildings
including 32 medieval churches. Anglia Square (and the inner ring road) was
invented at a time of great pressure in the post-war period, including a desire to
get the Stationery Office to relocate to Norwich. This scheme is oblivious to the
architectural and historical values that could bring real gains. The pace of
housing development is set to continue, so we need to be more careful than
ever, especially in Norwich. Conversions of offices and warehouses have largely
been successful but there is a limited supply of such sites. It is ironic that this
Inquiry should come at the same time as the plaudits for Goldsmith Street.
These proposals should be refused to make way for a policy of repair and
271 Summary of comments made orally by Mr Oxley and in OD27
272 Summary of comments made orally and in OD28
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 98
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
extension of the community, with a scale that sits comfortably within Norwich
over the water. There is a need for a considered brief and a design competition.
Gerard Stamp
390. Mr Stamp is an artist. The 1960s development of Anglia Square had the effect of
severing and ghettoising part of the city. There is an opportunity to repair that
damage. The ‘Living with beauty’ report recommends a fast track for
applications that enhance beauty. This proposal would bear no relation to its
context and would be worse than Anglia Square. The 20 storey tower would do
immense damage to Norwich. If similar harm were inflicted on Bath or York
there would be an international outcry. ‘Living with beauty’ aims to change the
nation, creating places rather than faceless architecture. Norwich should aspire
to that, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past.
Cllr Danny Douglas273
391. Cllr Douglas is a Norfolk County Councillor and a Transport Manager. The
community is positive about the need for development on the site but most
have expressed concerns about the scale of the tower. Many are also concerned
about the lack of green space, traffic congestion and air pollution. The local plan
outlines our shared ambitions to use and enhance the historic fabric of the city
to support the economy. However, this proposal runs contrary to many policies,
including by impinging on views from Mousehold Heath. The collapse of retail on
the High Street has continued since the application was submitted. Retail space
within the development is likely to appeal to chains rather than independent
small traders.
392. Providing retail space at Anglia Square risks the sustainability of the fragile bus
ecosystem. There are no direct services from communities to the south, west
and east of Norwich so driving would be more attractive. This would undermine
the commercial viability of the bus network. The underutilised retail locations at
St Stephens and Castle Quarter have direct bus links to much of Norfolk as well
as improved walking routes to the railway station. A successful retail
development at Anglia Square would damage these retail locations and cause a
modal shift to car use. The proposals contain insufficient affordable housing, in
the wrong phase and the wrong types of unit. In summary, the proposal does
not conform to our shared vision as expressed in the local plan.
Anna Brass and Paul Fenner
393. Ms Brass and Mr Fenner are artists who have studios in Gildengate House. There
is great energy in the Norwich art scene which includes many graduates from
the local art school. Norwich over the water is an artistic quarter due to the
availability of affordable studio space. Gildengate House accommodates some
80 artists, the biggest concentration of artists in the city. Loss of this space is a
threat to the wider cultural life of the city. The quality of the proposed design is
poor and would be destructive to the townscape of Norwich.
Phillipa Clements274
273 Summary of comments made orally and in OD35
274 Summary of comments made orally and in OD29
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 99
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
394. Ms Clements is a local resident and business owner. There has been what looks
like a standard consultation exercise but this falls short of a full and proactive
consultation. However, the community is willing and able to engage. There have
been many objections made during the planning process along with petitions,
community activities, theatre and song. The current poor state of Anglia Square
is a constant theme in responses, particularly from the relatively small number
of supporters. The comments of the Magdalen Street Traders Association reflect
a fear that the developer will walk away. The Council’s evidence also reflects a
fear of sending the wrong signal to potential investors. However, fear is not a
good reason to accept a poor plan. Had there been fuller engagement, a more
sensitive and sustainable plan could have been developed. This Inquiry seems
to be testing how far away from what the community wants can be got away
with. The Inquiry should test the strength of the Framework, which seeks
development appropriate to its location that engages with community
aspirations.
Jeff Jordan275
395. Mr Jordan is a local resident. The applicants’ transport witness suggested that
there is no correlation between car ownership and car use. However, those with
one or more cars are likely to drive more than those who do not own one. Car
clubs are proposed but there is no guarantee that additional bays could be
provided, if the need is greater than the 9 bays initially planned. No information
was given about the increase in bus services necessary to accommodate the
new residents. The car park is likely to add to congestion at times when it is full
and cars are trying to enter already congested roads. Cycling would be an
excellent way for residents and visitors to travel but there was no mention of
cycle storage space for residents and a minimal number of bike racks would be
available for the public. There is likely to be insufficient space for the delivery
vehicles needed to service a huge increase in online shopping.
Helen Leith276
396. Ms Leith is a trustee of the Norfolk Historic Buildings Trust. The proposed tower
and some of the blocks would do unacceptable and unnecessary harm to the
skyline. The design could have been more sensitive, with more contextual
references, more affordable housing, more family housing, more community
space and more facilities. It is a ‘could be anywhere’ design that relies too much
on retail provision which is unlikely to be fully realised. This design could be
modified to make it more acceptable. The application was only narrowly
approved by the Council, notwithstanding severe reservations about impacts on
the historic environment and conflict with the PGN. The ‘Living with beauty’
report is timely. It identifies a disconnect between what communities want and
what architects and developers wish to impose.
397. The historic skyline of Norwich has remained largely unchanged for 1,000 years.
The most important buildings on the skyline are civic, historic or religious. A
residential tower cannot be compared with these historic buildings. The recent
Pablo Fanque House is a disaster. The gulf between what the architect/
275 Summary of comments made orally and in OD30
276 Summary of comments made orally and in OD34
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 100
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
developer wants and what the public wants is clear from the aggressive
language of ego used by the applicants (‘unashamedly urban’, ‘strong visual
landmark’, ‘punctuates the sky’). Norwich does not need markers punctuating
the sky and ruining key views of the city.
398. The DM Plan says heritage harm will only be allowed where there are over-
riding benefits. There is no evidence of such benefits here. The Council’s
conservation officer has identified weaknesses of the scheme. Good modern
design, such as the Forum and Goldsmith Street, is welcomed in Norwich. This
scheme should be modified to create a beautiful and sustainable development
that will benefit the city in the long term.
Cllr Jamie Osborn
399. Cllr Osborn is a Norwich City Councillor. The scheme would not provide a
sufficiently good quality of life. It is disproportionately reliant on cars with over
1,000 parking spaces. There should be low (or zero) parking provision in this
location. The streets are already choked with traffic and air quality is a serious
concern. The proposal would not build on the unique character of Norwich’s
independent retail sector. A mainly flatted scheme would not represent good
place making. We need to take the climate emergency seriously and come up
with an alternative scheme.
Matthew Williams277
400. Mr Williams is a geologist and local historian. We can learn a lot from recent
history, for example, understanding the medieval routes which developed across
the city can help plan cycling and walking networks for a low energy future.
Ultimately geology drives everything, including the form and topography of the
city and its reason for being here. There is a coherent linkage from
subterranean conditions through multiple phases of human intervention to
produce the heritage we see today. Over centuries, new developments have
taken place in accordance with the grain of the city.
401. Anglia Square goes against that grain. It is a large east/west monolith, imposed
on earlier more subtle patterns of routes and property boundaries, bearing no
relation to the previous texture. Mass clearance snuffed out the life of part of
the city centre that was previously intensively used, leaving unusable triangular
peripheral plots. The proposal attempts to restore an echo of original diagonal
routeways. However, this is a feeble gesture in the face of the scale and ‘against
the grain’ impact of a scheme. It would repeat and indeed amplify the errors of
the 1970s with an even more massive intrusion into the landscape of a low rise
area. The proposal will not work spatially, culturally or in terms of the needs of
the community. A different approach is possible. We need to work with the grain
of the city.
Neil Cooke
402. Mr Cooke is a local resident and retired conservation architect. The applicants
first sought to justify the proposed tower as a landmark or waypoint. It is now
said to be a symbol of regeneration. In reality it would be a marker of 1960s
277 Summary of comments made orally and in OD31
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 101
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
vandalism, when potential listed buildings were demolished to make way for the
ring road and Anglia Square. Visitors have difficulty finding Elm Hill but the
solution is not to build a tower there. Why does Anglia Square need one? The
clock tower on City Hall is a landmark but people found the market for 1,000
years before it was built. The Council should admit its mistake and work with
local people. Norwich needs a Tate East or a concert hall. Regeneration should
support the arts and the digital sector, promoting better long term jobs.
Norwich over the water needs to be healed and Anglia Square needs a better
design.
Kate Murphy278
403. Ms Murphy is a local resident and has a studio in Gildengate House. Approaching
Anglia Square on foot, by bike or on the bus is a source of intense enjoyment,
contributing to well-being on a daily basis. Such uplifting experiences can be
experienced from St Augustines Street, Aylesham Road (from where the
Cathedral spire is seen) and Gildencroft Park. The Norwich skyline is exciting.
Key features appear around corners where one might not have expected to see
them. These benevolent features, which are low in height, are connectors to
past populations. They give the viewer a sense of being woven into the city, its
views and its long lifespan. The glass roofed pagoda at Anglia Square invites
you to sit, relax and look around. It is a place to feel connected to one another
and spend time together without spending money.
404. These are positive emotional feelings of being in and around Anglia Square that
will not exist for a person in and around the proposed development. Inevitably,
redevelopment will take place. However, the Council should take a lead in
protecting the unique emotional and community sustaining features that are
facilitated by the existing structures, when the structures themselves are
changed. This proposal would obliterate those features, degrading the area
socially and physically. Norwich should be protected from this.
Charlotte Helliwell
405. Ms Helliwell is a local resident. Norwich is a fascinating city. In 1967 it gained
the first pedestrian shopping street in the UK. It is the largest city to survive
without losing its medieval structure. It has evolved into a modern city without
losing its character. Anglia Square is an eyesore and a mistake. Any
replacement should enhance the local area and Norwich as a whole. The
proposal would not do that. The bulk, density, homogeneity and mediocrity of
the design would be a bigger eyesore than the existing buildings. The scheme
includes little affordable housing and would cause an influx of people from
elsewhere. Different priorities are needed, including low rise housing, green
spaces, small business units and a cinema. Car access should be limited. The
community should be much more involved. The Council has seriously
underestimated the harm to the city skyline and views. The site presents a
wonderful opportunity but this scheme would be a huge mistake.
Victoria Penn
278 Summary of comments made orally and in OD32
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 102
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
406. Ms Penn spoke on behalf of a local resident, who was unable to attend, and Car
Free Norwich. The local resident is concerned about poor air quality generally.
Pollution levels at Anglia Square, Magdalen Street and St Augustines Street are
of particular concern. The prospect of the additional traffic that would be
generated by the proposal is frightening because of the effect it would have on
air quality. Car Free Norwich sees an opportunity for Norwich to become one of
the great car free cities of Europe. The concentration of car parking in the
application scheme is regressive and would reduce the uptake of sustainable
travel modes.
Philip MacDonald
407. Mr MacDonald is part of the leadership team at Surrey Chapel, which has been
at its present location (within the application site) for 35 years. There is an
option to relinquish the site in favour of relocation. Negotiations with the
applicants have been positive and all parties have worked hard to develop an
alternative building. Surrey Chapel is conscious of the deterioration of Anglia
Square. Whilst it is understood that there are conflicting views, the proposal
provides an opportunity to regenerate the site, provide new jobs and create a
new community. It is hoped that the applicants will get the opportunity to carry
out this sustainable and inclusive development.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
408. The representations received by the Council when it considered the application
are summarised in the officers’ report which notes that there were 939
representations from individuals in addition to representations from statutory
bodies and community groups279. A wide range of points of objection and some
points of support were noted. In general, these related to matters covered
elsewhere in this report.
409. Numerous written representations were submitted in response to the call in.
These included around 12 of letters of support from individuals. These
mentioned the need to reverse a long period of decline, to remove an eyesore
and improve the area and to promote new housing and employment280. The
Magdalen Street Area and Anglia Square Traders Association, whose
membership includes over 100 businesses in the locality, supports the
application and is keen to see it go ahead without delay281. It comments that
there has been further decline over the last three years with the closure of the
cinema and loss of two long standing businesses fronting Anglia Square. The
developer has assured the traders that Anglia Square would be developed in
stages, such that it would remain open throughout. It would be retained as a
community based centre. Anglia Square cannot survive much longer. This is a
deprived area and there is a desperate need for the work, homes and
sustainability that this scheme would provide.
410. Representations have also been received on behalf of two shopping centres in
central Norwich. The owners of the Castle Quarter centre object to the
279 Paragraph 37 and following of CD2.15
280 For example, CD21.38 to CD21.41; CD21.46 to CD21.50 and CD21.52 to CD21.55
281 CD21.60
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 103
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
application on the basis that there would be a significant increase in main town
centre uses. They argue that this would not be consistent with the role of the
site in the retail hierarchy, contrary to JCS Policy 19282. Planning conditions are
suggested to limit the range of commercial occupiers and prevent the merging
and/or subdivision of units. The owners of the Chapelfield Shopping Centre do
not object to the principle of the scheme but are concerned about the retail
element. They suggest that it would compete with the primary retail area of
Norwich, rather than complementing it as required by the PGN283. Conditions
are suggested requiring that at least 3,000 sqm of the retail space be restricted
to convenience goods and that at least 70% of the flexible commercial space be
for retail use. They also seek restrictions on occupation by any retailer who is
currently occupying floorspace in the primary shopping area of Norwich.
411. The majority of written representations submitted in response to the call in, and
those submitted at the Inquiry, were from objectors284. The grounds of
objection generally related to matters covered elsewhere in this report.
CONDITIONS
412. The suggested conditions were discussed during the course of the Inquiry. The
final schedule of suggested conditions285 was agreed between the Council and
the applicants and was not disputed by other parties present at the Inquiry.
I have considered the suggested conditions in the light of Planning Practice
Guidance. I have made some changes to detailed wording in the interests of
clarity. However the conditions set out in Annex G are, in substance, the same
as those suggested. Conditions 25 and 28 require matters to be approved
before development commences. This is necessary because these conditions
address impacts that would occur during construction. The applicant has agreed
to the pre-commencement conditions286.
413. Conditions 1 to 12 relate to the detailed element of the hybrid application.
Condition 1 is a standard condition, modified to reflect the fact that the tower
would not be constructed as part of the first phase. Condition 2 requires
development to be carried out in accordance with the plans in the interests of
clarity. Condition 3 restricts construction of the tower until such time as the
reserved matters for the buildings that would be physically attached to it have
been approved. Condition 4 requires approval of materials and other building
details in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Condition 5
requires approval of hard and soft landscaping in the interests of the character
and appearance of the area, biodiversity and the living conditions of future
residents.
414. Condition 6 requires approval of a car park management plan. Condition 7
requires connection to the city wide variable message signs. Condition 8
requires the use of existing surface level public parking within the site to cease.
282 CD21.1
283 CD21.2 and CD22.19
284 CD21.3 to CD21.64; CD22.1 to CD22.44 and Inquiry documents in OD series (noting that
some representations of support are also included in this set of documents)
285 ID13
286 WH25
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 104
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Together, these conditions are necessary to ensure that the public car parking
accords with development plan policies promoting sustainable transport choices.
Condition 9 provides for monitoring of the use of residential car and cycle
parking. Condition 10 requires a proportion of the spaces in Block A to be held
back for use by residents of later phases. Together, these conditions are
necessary in the interests of sustainable transport. Condition 11 requires the
provision of a foodstore in Block A, in the interests of enhancing the function of
the LDC. Condition 12 secures the delivery of public toilets and a Changing
Places facility in the interests of inclusivity.
415. Conditions 13 to 15 relate to the outline element of the hybrid application.
Condition 13 is a standard time condition, modified to reflect the phased nature
of the development. Condition 14 requires development to be carried out in
accordance with the plans and that the reserved matters comply with the
parameter plans. This is necessary to ensure that the scheme is consistent with
the impacts assessed in the ES. Condition 15 requires some further
assessments related to specific development parcels. This reflects the phased
implementation of the scheme and will enable effective mitigation of impacts at
reserved matters stage.
416. The other conditions relate to all phases. Condition 16 limits the floorspace for
specific uses to ensure that the scheme is consistent with the impacts assessed
in the ES. Condition 17 requires a minimum amount of Class A3/A4 floorspace,
condition 18 requires a minimum amount of floorspace for a cinema and
condition 19 requires the provision of some smaller commercial units. Together,
these conditions are necessary to ensure a balanced mix of town centre uses
and unit sizes within the LDC. Condition 20 provides for phased implementation
of the development, enabling co-ordinated delivery of infrastructure and
mitigation measures during the course of the development. Condition 21
requires approval of a Demolition Method Statement to mitigate demolition
impacts and to enable the LDC to continue to operate throughout the
construction phase.
417. Condition 22 provides for the relocation of Surrey Chapel, to ensure satisfactory
retention of a community facility. Condition 23 provides for the timely
demolition of Sovereign House, a prominent building which blights the
surrounding area, in the interests of securing the economic and environmental
improvement of the area. Condition 24 ensures that demolition of Nos 43 to 45
Pitt Street is followed by redevelopment in a reasonable time, so as to protect
the character and appearance of the NCCCA. Condition 25 requires the approval
of a Demolition and Construction Traffic Management Plan, condition 26 requires
further details of highway improvements to be submitted and condition 27
secures early delivery of the Edward Street cycle improvements. Together,
these conditions are necessary in the interests of highway safety.
418. Condition 28 requires the approval of a Construction and Environmental
Management Plan in the interests of highway safety, air quality and the amenity
of the surrounding area. Condition 29 requires approval of a Written Scheme of
Investigation and condition 30 sets out the procedure if there are unexpected
archaeological finds during construction. These conditions are needed to protect
the archaeological potential of the site. Condition 31 requires approval of
measures to deal with contamination and condition 32 sets out the procedure if
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 105
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
unexpected contamination is found during construction. These conditions are
needed to manage risks of pollution. Condition 33 restricts infiltration of surface
water drainage, without express approval, to manage risks to groundwater
quality.
419. Condition 34 requires approval of a Piling Method Statement in the interests of
protecting the living conditions of neighbouring properties and managing risks
to groundwater quality. Condition 35 requires the certification of imported soil in
the interests of managing risks of pollution. Condition 36 requires approval of
updated flood risk strategies (on a phased basis), condition 37 requires approval
of surface water drainage and condition 38 requires approval of a flood warning
plan. Together, these conditions are needed to manage flood risk. Condition 39
requires approval of fire hydrants in the interests of health and safety. Condition
40 requires the approval of a crime prevention strategy in the interests of
community safety.
420. Condition 41 requires the approval of further noise assessments and condition
42 requires further air quality assessments, in the interests of protecting the
living conditions of future occupiers. Condition 43 requires that 10% of the
residential units are accessible and adaptable dwellings in the interests of
inclusivity. Condition 44 sets a water efficiency standard for the dwellings and
condition 45 requires approval of water conservation measures for the non-
residential uses, in the interests of sustainable development. Condition 46
requires the approval of an Energy Scheme for the commercial units and
condition 47 requires implementation of measures for the residential units
contained in the submitted reports. These conditions are needed to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions and to contribute towards climate change adaptation.
Condition 48 requires approval of external lighting in the interests of amenity,
biodiversity and aviation safety.
421. Condition 49 requires approval of a Travel Information Plan for the commercial
units and condition 50 requires a similar plan for the dwellings. Condition 51
requires approval of electric vehicle charging points. These conditions are
needed in the interests of sustainable transport. Condition 52 ensures that the
residential parking is reserved for residents, condition 53 requires approval of
cycle parking and refuse storage for the dwellings and condition 54 requires the
same details for the commercial units. These conditions are needed in the
interests of sustainable development and highway safety. Condition 55 requires
approval of a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan to secure satisfactory
servicing arrangements and protect the living conditions of future residents.
422. Condition 56 sets hours of operation for the Class A3/A4 units, condition 57
requires approval of screening times at the cinema, condition 58 requires
approval of measures to control fumes/odours and condition 59 sets noise limits
for fixed plant/machinery. These conditions are needed in the interests of
protecting the living conditions of future residents. Condition 60 removes
permitted development rights for communications apparatus in the interests of
the character and appearance of the NCCCA. Condition 61 restricts the ability to
increase the commercial floorspace through future alterations, to ensure that
the scale of main town centre uses remains consistent with the position of the
LDC in the retail hierarchy.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 106
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
423. Condition 62 removes permitted development rights to change from Class A3 to
Class A1/A2 and condition 63 removes permitted development rights to change
commercial space to dwellings. Together these conditions are necessary to
ensure that the scheme provides a balanced mix of town centre uses in support
of the LDC role and (for condition 63) to ensure that the effects of noise and air
quality on potential future residents are appropriately assessed. Condition 64
requires approval of a Public Space Strategy. This is necessary to ensure that
the new public realm supports the new residential community and the vitality
and viability of the LDC. Condition 65 requires approval of a Shop Mobility
Scheme in the interests of inclusivity. Condition 66 sets space standards for the
residential flats to ensure high quality living space for future residents.
424. The owners of two shopping centres in the centre of Norwich have suggested
additional conditions relating to the proposed retail floorspace. This matter is
discussed in more detail below, in the section dealing with town centres, where
I conclude that these additional conditions should not be imposed.
425. If the Secretary of State is minded to grant planning permission, I recommend
that the conditions set out in Annex G be imposed.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 107
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
INSPECTOR’S CONCLUSIONS
The numbers in square brackets [n] refer to earlier paragraphs in this report
426. Taking into account the oral and written evidence, the Secretary of State’s
reasons for calling in the application and my observations on site, the main
considerations are:
• the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for delivering a sufficient supply of homes;
• the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government's policies for building a strong, competitive economy;
• the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government's policies for ensuring the vitality of town centres;
• the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government's policies for conserving and enhancing the historic
environment;
• the effect of the proposal on air quality;
• viability and the prospects for delivery of the scheme as a whole;
• the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for promoting sustainable transport; and
• the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
development plan for the area.
Policy context
427. The development plan comprises the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich
and South Norfolk (March 2011) together with amendments that were adopted
in January 2014 (the JCS); the Norwich Development Management Policies
Local Plan (December 2014) (the DM Plan) and the Norwich Development Site
Allocations Local Plan (December 2014) (the SA Plan). With regard to the SA
Plan, no party identified any polices of relevance to this application. The Council
and the applicant agreed that very limited weight could be attached to the
emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan at this stage of its preparation. I share
that view. [21, 22]
428. The following are the most important JCS policies for determining this
application:
• Policy 1 - Addressing climate change and protecting environmental assets
• Policy 2 - Promoting good design
• Policy 3 - Energy and water
• Policy 4 – Housing delivery
• Policy 5 - The economy
• Policy 7 - Supporting communities
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 108
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• Policy 11 – Norwich city centre
• Policy 19 – The hierarchy of centres [23 to 25]
429. The following are the most important DM Plan policies for determining this
application:
• DM1 – Achieving and delivering sustainable development
• DM2 – Ensuring satisfactory living and working conditions
• DM3 – Delivering high quality design
• DM8 – Planning effectively for open space and recreation
• DM9 – Safeguarding Norwich’s heritage
• DM11 – Protecting against environmental hazards
• DM12 – Ensuring well-planned housing development
• DM13 – Communal development and multiple occupation
• DM16 – Supporting the needs of business
• DM17 – Supporting small business
• DM18 – Promoting and supporting centres
• DM19 - Offices
• DM20 – Protecting and supporting city centre shopping
• DM28 - Encouraging sustainable travel
• DM29 – Managing car parking demand in the city centre
• DM31 – Car parking and servicing
• DM32 – Encouraging car free and low car housing
• DM33 – Planning obligations [26 – 28]
430. Turning to other sources of guidance, the Norwich City Centre Conservation
Area Appraisal describes the features that contribute to the special architectural
and historic interest of the area. Whilst I have taken it into account, I note that
the management and enhancement measures that it sets out do not have the
status of planning policy. The Anglia Square Policy Guidance Note (PGN) is non-
statutory guidance. It is intended to be a material consideration, albeit with less
weight than an adopted supplementary planning document. I have taken it into
account on that basis. [29, 30, 245, 255]
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for delivering a sufficient supply of homes
The need for housing in Norwich
431. The calculation of housing land supply is carried out in relation to the three
Greater Norwich Districts, namely Norwich City Council, Broadland District
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 109
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Council and South Norfolk District Council. The most recent Annual Monitoring
Report indicates that, by reference to the standard methodology, the supply of
housing land is 5.89 years. Whilst it is relevant to note that this meets the
requirements set out in paragraph 73 of the Framework, that is only part of the
picture. Within the Council’s administrative area the supply is just 4 years.
Moreover, there has been historic under-delivery against the targets of the JCS.
If supply were calculated in relation to the JCS targets for the Norwich Policy
Area, (an area centred on and influenced by Norwich, as defined in the JCS),
supply would be just 3.36 years. This is evidence of significant need in the
Council’s area, notwithstanding that the requirements of paragraph 73 are met.
[164, 165]
432. The application represents the single most significant housing project in Norwich
and is capable of delivering a substantial amount of housing over the next
decade. It would deliver up to 1,250 dwellings. In terms of overall housing
numbers, this would equate to around two years of Norwich’s housing needs.
[162]
Contributing to a mix of unit sizes and types
433. The proposal would deliver nine three-bedroom houses, with the great majority
of the dwellings being one and two-bedroom flats, including a small number of
duplexes. NS (and others) argued that this mix would be poorly aligned with the
need for a range of unit sizes identified in the Strategic Housing Market
Assessment (SHMA). The Council accepted that this would be a rather narrow
range of unit types. The SHMA indicates that 36% of the total need for market
and affordable dwellings is for one and two-bedroom flats. However, the SHMA
is part of the evidence base for a plan that is currently being prepared. It is not
itself policy and there is no policy requirement for an individual scheme to
mirror the proportions of dwelling types and sizes set out in the SHMA. [166,
313]
434. DM Plan Policy DM12(d) states that proposals should provide a mix of dwelling
types, including a proportion of family houses and flats. However, this is subject
to considering whether the size and configuration of the scheme makes this aim
practicable. No numerical targets are set within the policy. It is important to
note that the application site is within a Large District Centre (LDC) where the
Norwich City Centre Key Diagram (in the JCS) indicates that the focus of change
at Anglia Square will include commercial, retail and residential uses. I accept
the Council’s argument that the strategic need to provide for retail and
commercial uses at ground floor level significantly limits the opportunities to
provide houses. Moreover, there would be a need to create active frontages to
the new streets and public spaces within the scheme. With regard to need, the
SHMA indicates a need for over 5,000 flats (over the period 2015 – 2036) so the
proposal would make a substantial contribution to meeting that particular need.
[167]
435. Some local residents argued that the housing mix would lead to the site having
a dormitory function, with transitory residents, which would not contribute to
building a community. On the other hand, the SHMA shows that there is a need
for a substantial number of flats in Norwich. This site, which is highly accessible
to the city centre, would be attractive to those working locally. For the same
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 110
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
reasons, it may prove attractive to those wishing to downsize to an accessible
location. Moreover, the proposals include affordable housing, as discussed
below. Drawing all this together, I consider that the particular circumstances of
the site justify the housing mix proposed and I find no conflict with Policy
DM12(d) in this respect. [373]
Affordable housing
436. The section 106 Agreement makes provision for 120 affordable dwellings,
comprising 9 three-bedroom houses and 111 one-bedroom flats, representing
around 10% of the total number of units. Of these, 85% would be social rented
and 15% would be intermediate. JCS Policy 4 requires 33% of dwellings on
large developments to be affordable, although this proportion may be reduced
where the development would be unviable in current market conditions. The
proposed social rented/intermediate split would accord with Policy 4. Several
representations, both oral and written, questioned the amount of affordable
housing. Norwich Green Party (NGP) argued that the SHMA data shows that
there is a need for 38.3% of total housing need to be delivered as affordable
housing. It was suggested that the proposed delivery of just 10% affordable
housing would compare poorly with the requirements of the JCS and extremely
poorly with the need identified in the SHMA. NGP also submitted that the
affordable units would not be delivered early enough in the development
programme. [8, 355, 356, 357]
437. Viability is discussed further below. In summary, it is common ground between
the applicants, the Council and HE that the scheme is marginally viable with
10% affordable housing, after taking into account marginal viability funding of
£15 million and the anticipated grant of exceptional circumstances relief from
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Some argued that, with public funding on
this scale, it is wrong that so little affordable housing would be achieved.
However, there was no evidence to counter the position as agreed in the SoCG
on viability matters. The justification for awarding marginal viability funding is
not a matter for me to comment on. The factual position is that the funding has
been agreed. On the evidence before me, I conclude that 10% affordable
housing is the most that can be achieved in current market conditions.
[38, 167, 380]
438. Paragraph 64 of the Framework seeks the provision of 10% of units on larger
housing schemes as affordable home ownership. However, I consider that this is
a case where, having regard to the evidence on viability and housing need,
meeting that aim would significantly prejudice the affordable housing needs of
those specifically requiring social rented housing in this part of Norwich.
439. It is also relevant to note that the section 106 Agreement includes a review
mechanism, such that additional affordable housing could be secured if viability
improves during the implementation period. The Agreement also links the
delivery of affordable housing to the phases of the development. For example,
no more than 200 market units could be occupied in Block A until the affordable
units in Block D had been completed and transferred to an affordable housing
provider. I consider that these provisions are appropriate to the circumstances
of the application scheme, which would be delivered over a number of phases,
and would ensure timely delivery of the affordable housing.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 111
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
440. NGP referred to SHMA data and housing waiting list data which, it was
suggested, indicated that 25% of the affordable units should be two-bedroom
flats. However, as discussed above, the SHMA data is not a statement of policy.
Whilst it provides evidence of need, that evidence relates to Norwich as a whole.
The Council’s Housing Development Manager provided evidence of the
difficulties of letting two-bedroom flats above ground level to families in this
locality. He supported the approach whereby all the affordable flats would be
one-bed units because, in his view, this would address the greatest housing
need. I consider that the Council is well placed to judge the way in which the
affordable element could best be deployed to meet local needs and I accept the
Council’s evidence on this point. [167]
Whether the proposals would create satisfactory living conditions
441. The Norwich Society drew attention to the density of the scheme which, at 285
dwellings per hectare, would be very much higher than densities typically found
in Norwich. However, density alone is not a measure of the quality of the
residential accommodation that would be provided. NS commented that access
to flats via long single sided corridors would be oppressive. It is a feature of the
design that the residential accommodation would be wrapped around multi-level
car parking. This approach would inevitably result in significant numbers of
single aspect units, accessed by corridors which would not have natural light.
Whilst that would be a disadvantage of the design, I consider that there is a
balance to be struck between having more residential accesses and maximising
active frontages at street level. Future residents would benefit from having
legible entrances directly off active public spaces and the design would perform
well in terms of community safety. [312, 313]
442. Looking at living conditions in the round, it is important to note that the flats
would have reasonable internal space standards. The one-bedroom flats would
meet the technical standard for one-bedroom/two person units and the two-
bedroom flats would meet the standard for two-bedroom/four person units.
(This would be secured by suggested condition 66). The living areas would
benefit from floor to ceiling glazing and the flats would have balconies as well as
access to communal outdoor roof gardens. Overall, I consider that the proposed
flats would provide a good standard of residential accommodation and would
create satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers.
Conclusions on housing
443. I conclude that the proposal would significantly boost the supply of housing in
Norwich. The mix of housing types is justified by the particular circumstances of
the site and the amount of affordable housing would be the most that could be
achieved in current market conditions. There is a section 106 Agreement in
place which contains appropriate provisions relating to the phasing of affordable
housing and review mechanisms which could enable more affordable housing to
be provided in the event that viability improves. The scheme would create
satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. Overall, I consider that the
proposal would accord with the housing policies set out in the Framework and
I attach significant weight to the benefit of housing delivery, including affordable
housing.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 112
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government's policies for building a strong, competitive economy
444. In the early 1980s some 2,400 people were employed at Sovereign House.
Large numbers would also have been employed in the adjoining Gildengate
House at that time. Neither building has been let on commercial terms for many
years although parts of Gildengate House are in temporary use as studios for
local artists. There is currently over 16,000 sqm of vacant commercial
floorspace, amounting to around half of all the floorspace for retail, commercial
and other town centre uses. The application site currently supports 180 – 230
jobs, mostly in the retail and creative sectors. This figure includes employment
in social enterprises occupying premises fronting Pitt Street. The Magdalen
Street Area and Anglia Square Traders Association comments that the decline of
Anglia Square has continued in recent years, with the closure of the cinema and
loss of two long-standing businesses. On the other hand, local residents stress
that the shops at Anglia Square are still much valued by the community.
[108, 169, 373, 409]
445. It is estimated that construction of the proposed development would generate
250 – 300 jobs on site, plus a further 275 indirect jobs. Once operational it is
projected that the site would support 536 – 693 jobs. It is estimated that the
increased vitality of the centre would generate a further 60 – 118 jobs in the
local economy. The Council considers that this would have a substantial positive
effect on job opportunities for local residents, and the city as a whole, and
would contribute to addressing deprivation in this part of the city. The Council
also believes that the proposal would act as a catalyst for further investment.
This view is supported by the New Anglia Local Economic Partnership, which
comments that the scheme would provide a significant number of construction
and supply chain jobs and a broader mix of employment in the longer term. The
Local Economic Partnership notes that Norwich has strong technical, digital and
creative sectors which are growing fast. [171, 172, 173, 367]
446. However, some parties challenged the claimed economic benefits of the
scheme. For example, Cathedral, Magdalen and St Augustine’s Forum (CMSA)
argued that the scheme fails to respond to the needs of the digital and creative
sectors due to an unsympathetic development format and a lack of place
making. Others commented that the scheme would not be attractive to these
sectors because they look for low rise, flexible spaces suitable for working and
living. It was also argued that the economic benefits have been overstated and
that, due to the highly mobile nature of the construction workforce, the effect
on construction employment would be marginal. [315, 370, 371, 384]
447. The proposal aims to respond to the changing nature of shopping and
employment by seeking flexibility in the uses of the commercial units. The
scheme would include some 11,000 sqm of flexible retail/commercial uses. This
would be subject to conditions designed to support the role of the LDC, as
discussed below. Nevertheless, this flexibility could accommodate a wide range
of employment generating uses. The applicants intend to retain as many as
possible of the existing tenants of Anglia Square. The phasing of the scheme
has been designed to enable Anglia Square to continue trading during
construction. The section 106 Agreement provides for an Anglia Square
Management Plan, to be approved by the Council, which would contain
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 113
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
measures to support existing tenants remaining at the site, assist those seeking
alternative premises nearby and support continued trading at Anglia Square.
[8, 31 – 34]
448. The proposal includes flexible commercial units fronting Pitt Street and Edward
Street which would be made available to small and medium enterprises as
discounted commercial units. The section 106 Agreement provides for these
units to be offered at 20% below the average market rents for existing
commercial units in the locality, excluding those within the scheme. The
Agreement sets out a cascade approach, whereby these units would be offered
first to those displaced by the scheme, then to social enterprises, artists and
makers and then to small and medium enterprises generally. [8]
449. The availability of affordable studio space at Gildengate House has no doubt
been of benefit to the art scene of Norwich and to the local economy. I note that
Gildengate House would not be required for development until around 2029, so
the artists with studios there would have time to seek alternative studio space.
This was only ever intended as a temporary use of a vacant building, pending
redevelopment. Consequently, I do not think that loss of the temporary use
should weigh significantly against the proposals.
450. The scheme would accommodate retail and commercial uses at ground floor
level and residential flats on the upper floors. It does not appear to cater for
live/work units. However, an important planning policy consideration here is the
designation of Anglia Square as part of an LDC. The design of the scheme
prioritises the revitalisation of the shopping centre, in accordance with the
development plan. That said, I consider that the provision for flexible uses,
together with support for relocating tenants within the scheme and the provision
of discounted commercial units, would help to maximise the benefits to the local
economy and may well provide some opportunities for the digital and creative
sectors. With regard to the construction phase, the section 106 Agreement
makes provision for an employment and skills strategy which would support
local employment and training.
451. The figures for future employment set out in the ES are based on standard
floorspace multipliers. It is not unusual for socio-economic assessments to be
done in this way, particularly where (as in this case) future occupiers are not
known. In my view they give a useful indication of future employment levels,
expressed as a range, but should not to be taken as precise forecasts.
452. In conclusion, it is clear that Anglia Square is not fulfilling its potential to
contribute to the local economy, having regard to its size, its strategic location
and its designation as part of an LDC. The proposal would result in some
existing employment being displaced. However, overall there would be a
significant net gain in employment. I consider that the application scheme would
help to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt.
It would provide flexibility in relation to permitted uses, which would help Anglia
Square to respond to changes in economic circumstances. Insofar as the current
condition of the site is a barrier to investment, that barrier would be removed.
The proposal would therefore be in accordance with those policies of the
Framework which seek to create a strong, competitive economy. I attach
significant weight to these economic benefits.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 114
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government's policies for ensuring the vitality of town centres
453. Policy 19 of the JCS defines a hierarchy of town centres where the development
of new retailing, services, offices and other town centre uses will be
encouraged. This approach is consistent with paragraph 85 of the Framework
which states that such hierarchies should be defined so that their long term
viability can be promoted. Norwich city centre is at the top of this hierarchy.
Anglia Square/Magdalen Street is identified as a large district centre (LDC)
within the second tier. DM Plan DM18 states that retail, leisure and other town
centre uses (as defined in the Framework) will be permitted at the defined
centres where their scale is appropriate to the position of a centre in the
hierarchy set out in JCS Policy 19. For an LDC, there is no specific numerical
threshold for individual units or for the centre as a whole. [25, 28]
454. The PGN states that Anglia Square has a limited, value-led offer and that it lacks
the diversity of uses needed to fulfil the LDC role. There is said to be a major
opportunity to create a new shopping area alongside complementary leisure
uses. The Greater Norwich Employment, Town Centre and Retail Study
described Anglia Square as aesthetically unpleasing, performing a retail function
that is little more than functional. The recommendations of the Study were that,
to meet day to day shopping needs, redevelopment should continue to
incorporate retail floorspace at ground floor level. This should include a mix of
unit sizes, including larger units to enable current national retailers to remain
alongside smaller units for more specialist operators. [174]
455. The officers’ report notes that Anglia Square currently has 13,570 sqm of Class
A1 (retail), A3 (cafes/restaurants) and sui generis uses. The proposal includes a
total of 11,000 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace. Even if the maximum
retail component were provided, this would be a significant reduction on the
current level of provision. There would also be a significant decrease in B1
(office/business) use. The inclusion of the proposed hotel (11,350 sqm) would
be a significant new town centre use. The retail strategy is to focus retail uses
around the reconfigured Anglia Square, anchored by a food store. The new St
George Square would include the cinema and leisure uses, including food and
drink outlets.
456. Although the application seeks flexibility in the permitted uses, the suggested
planning conditions set out parameters which are intended to ensure that the
LDC role is fulfilled. These are:
• An overall limit of 11,000 sqm for the flexible commercial floorspace
(condition 16);
• Block A is to include a food store with a minimum floorspace of 800 sqm
(condition 11);
• The flexible commercial floorspace is to include a minimum of 1,500 sqm of
Class A3 (cafes/restaurants) and Class A4 (drinking establishments), of
which 75% is to be around the leisure square, with the total of such uses
not exceeding 3,500 sqm (condition 17);
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 115
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• The flexible commercial floorspace is to include at least 5 units between 75
sqm and 150 sqm and at least 5 units between 150 sqm and 250 sqm
(condition 19);
• The overall limit on flexible commercial floorspace is not to be exceeded by
subsequent extensions or alterations (condition 61); and
• A restriction on changes of use that would result in the amount of Class A3
and A4 floorspace around the leisure square falling below 1,125 sqm
(condition 62).
With these conditions in place, the Council considers that the proposal responds
positively to the recommendations of the Study described above and would
address the steady decline of the centre, thereby supporting the long term
vitality and viability of the LDC. [175]
457. CMSA and others drew attention to the value placed on the existing shops by
the local community, expressing concern that the new shops would not be
suited to expanding the local convenience sector. It is important to note that, in
policy terms, Anglia Square and Magdalen Street are not separate centres.
Magdalen Street is part of the LDC as defined in the development plan. The
conditions described above aim to secure an anchor food store, to provide a
range of unit sizes (including some smaller uses) and to create a new leisure
destination at St George Square which would enhance the evening economy. It
seems to me that these measures would benefit existing businesses in Magdalen
Street through increased footfall and greater use of the centre in the evening.
[370, 372, 374]
458. As discussed in the previous section, the section 106 Agreement includes
measures to support the existing retail tenants at Anglia Square with a view to
relocating those who wish to remain and keeping the centre open during
construction. Retaining existing tenants who are trading successfully would also
be beneficial to the LDC a whole, including Magdalen Street, and to the
community. The Magdalen Street Area and Anglia Square Traders Association
supports the proposal and is keen to see it go ahead without delay, to reverse
the decline of recent years. [409]
459. Representations drew attention to the well-publicised challenges facing high
street retailing in general, arguing that there is no need for additional retail
floorspace at Anglia Square. However, it is important to note that this is not a
proposal to increase the total amount of retail floorspace. There would in fact be
a reduction, although the new space would be in modern units in a much more
accessible and attractive environment. As discussed above, subject to the above
conditions, there would be flexibility both in the uses proposed and in the unit
sizes. This would help the LDC to adapt to changing economic conditions.
[381, 387]
460. The owners of the Castle Quarter centre object to the application on the basis
that there would be a significant increase in main town centre uses, which they
argue would be contrary to JCS Policy 19. Conditions are suggested to limit the
range of commercial occupiers and prevent the merging and/or subdivision of
units. The owners of the Chapelfield Shopping Centre have suggested further
restrictions on the use of the flexible commercial space and a restriction on
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 116
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
occupation by any retailer who is currently occupying floorspace in the primary
shopping area of Norwich. Whilst there would be an increase in the total
floorspace devoted to town centre uses, this is attributable to the proposed
hotel and an increase in the size of the cinema. As discussed above, the retail
component would decrease. JCS Policy 19 and DM Plan Policy DM18 are
supportive of retail development within the LDC, subject to consideration of
scale. In my view the provision of less retail floorspace than is already there
would be appropriate to the position of the centre in the hierarchy, provided
that there is enough of it to maintain the LDC function. [410]
461. In this case the reduction in the amount of retail floorspace would be offset by
improvements to the quality of that space, linked to an enhanced leisure offer.
The proposal would therefore be appropriate to the position of Anglia Square in
the retail hierarchy, consistent with JCS Policy 19 and DM Plan Policy DM18.
I see no reason to think that these enhancements to the functioning of the LDC
would undermine the viability and vitality of the much larger Norwich city
centre. To my mind there is no justification for the additional restrictions sought
by the owners of the Chapelfield and Castle Quarter centres. Such restrictions
would serve no planning purpose and would limit the ability of Anglia Square to
adapt to changing economic conditions. [176]
462. I conclude that the proposal would support the role that Anglia Square/
Magdalen Street plays in the hierarchy of centres, promoting the long term
vitality and viability of the LDC. This would accord with the policies of the
Framework relating to the vitality of town centres. It is a benefit of the scheme
to which I attach significant weight.
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government's policies for conserving and enhancing the historic
environment
The heritage assets
463. The Norwich City Centre Conservation Area (NCCCA) is a large and varied area.
The NCCCA Appraisal notes that Norwich has developed over almost 1,000
years. The legacy of the Anglo-Scandinavian settlers is visible at Tombland,
which was the city’s first market place. The Castle and Cathedral date from the
Norman era and the city walls are from the medieval period. The centre of
Norwich is quite hilly, adding drama to the townscape. The Appraisal identifies
six strategic landmarks:
• Cathedral of the Holy and Undivided Trinity (the Cathedral)
• Norwich Castle (the Castle)
• Cathedral of St John the Baptist (the RC Cathedral)
• Church of St Peter Mancroft
• Church of St Giles
• City Hall clock tower
464. The NCCCA Appraisal divides the conservation area into 13 character areas. The
application site is in the Anglia Square character area, which is described as
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 117
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
being dominated by 20th century commercial development of very poor
townscape quality. The character area is assessed as having ‘low
significance’287. The Northern City character area, which is assessed as
‘significant’, wraps around Anglia Square to the west, north and east. Magdalen
Street and the northern part of St Augustines Street are described as relatively
narrow and intimate streets. The Colegate character area, to the south of Anglia
Square, is assessed as being of ‘high significance’. The Appraisal notes that
there is a contrast between small intimate streets, alleys and courtyards and
larger factory buildings, creating a dramatic juxtaposition. The tight grain of the
buildings is said to enclose the streets well, creating an intimate feel.
465. Overall, I consider that the special interest of the NCCCA, and its significance (in
the terms of the Framework) derives from many factors. These include a well
preserved medieval street pattern (with earlier influences), a dramatic
topography, the six strategic landmarks, a wealth of listed buildings, numerous
well-defined historic street frontages and qualities of enclosure and intimacy
which are found in many locations across the designated area. The individual
designated heritage assets include several Grade I and II* listed buildings and
also scheduled monuments. There are many historic parish churches. The
significance of the designated assets potentially affected by the application was
agreed between the respective heritage witnesses at the Inquiry, as set out in
the supplementary Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) on the significance of
heritage assets. I agree with those assessments. [262, 291]
The design of the proposed development
466. It is convenient to start with an overview of the design, to inform an
assessment of the way it would relate to its context. I will return to some more
detailed aspects of the design in the relevant sections of the report. The
evolution of the design is described in the evidence. It is important to bear in
mind that only Block A and the tower have been submitted in detail. The other
blocks are in the outline element of the hybrid application. The full details of
those blocks, which would be subject to approval by the Council at reserved
matters stage, would need to accord with the parameter plans. [60, 156]
467. One of the key determinants of the design has been the creation of two
pedestrian and cycle routes through the site. One would run approximately
north/south, linking Edward Street to a newly created pedestrian/cycle crossing
point on St Crispins Road at George Street. The other would run approximately
east/west, linking Magdalen Street to St Augustines Street. Two public squares
are proposed, one at the intersection of these two routes and one in the location
of the present Anglia Square. The new routes would not precisely replicate the
alignment of the street pattern that was lost when the area was
comprehensively redeveloped. Nor would the once fine grain of alleyways and
courts be reproduced. Even so, the new routes would be close to the line of the
lost sections of St George Street and Botolph Street and, importantly, would do
much to reinstate the former movement pattern. This would create a legible
287 The NCCCA Appraisal pre-dates the Framework so reference to ‘significance’ in the
Appraisal does not necessarily read across to the way the term is used in the Framework
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 118
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
layout and greatly enhance permeability. The new squares would create
attractive public spaces. [64, 149, 259]
468. The proposal is for a mixed use scheme. Most of the ground floor would be
devoted to retail, leisure and commercial uses. There would be active frontages
to Magdalen Street and along the public routes within the scheme, animating
the public realm. The Design and Access Statement (DAS) describes the building
typologies that would make up the new street blocks as ‘mansion block’,
‘warehouse’ and ‘town house’. These typologies seek to relate to the scale of
building types found in the locality, rather than replicating the appearance of
such buildings. The DAS also describes the approach to facing materials as
being formal and contextual on the outward facing elevations and more informal
and contemporary on the elevations within the scheme. For example, it is
proposed to use red brick on the Magdalen Street elevation. [64]
469. Building heights would vary throughout the scheme, seeking to make a
transition to the scale of adjoining development. For example, development
would step down to 4 storeys on Magdalen Street (with the upper floor being set
back) and 5 storeys on the frontage of New Botolph Street at the junction of St
Augustines Street. In general the taller buildings would be within the site rather
than on the edges. However, the frontage to St Crispins Road would include 8,
10 and 12 storey buildings.
470. Detailed elevations have been submitted for Block A. These show that, on the
southern elevation (facing into the scheme), the bay widths and window
proportions would give a vertical emphasis to the facade. Variations in brick
colour and materials for balconies could be used to differentiate the blocks,
providing articulation to the long elevation. Full details of materials would be
subject to approval under conditions. On the Edward Street elevation, the
residential blocks would project well forward of the visible elements of the
multi-storey car park. This would strengthen the vertical proportions of the
three residential blocks, giving them prominence in oblique views along the
street, thereby helping to break up the perceived bulk of Block A. The upper
levels of Block A would be set back from the main elevations and faced with a
light weight cladding system.
471. Detailed elevations have also been submitted for the proposed 20 storey tower,
which would be sited well within the scheme beside the proposed St George
Square. The design of the tower was amended in the light of comments from
Design South East. It would have clear base, middle and top zones. The base
would be expressed by double height piers marking the entrance. The top would
be marked more subtly, with diamond patterning in the brickwork. The DAS
indicates that a pale brick would be used to reduce visual impact. Brickwork
piers would run up the full height of the structure, emphasising its vertical
proportions. The amendments included a ‘pinched’ plan form, creating a fold in
each elevation. This would be a distinctive feature which would also help to
emphasise the verticality of the tower. Overall, I consider that the tower would
be well proportioned and would create a focal point within the scheme. [69]
472. NS and others criticised the design on the basis that it lacks local
distinctiveness, describing it as an ‘anywhere design’. I would agree that there
are features of the proposal that may well call to mind large scale regeneration
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 119
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
projects in other cities. In particular, the prevailing scale (at the edge of the
scheme) of 7 to 10 storeys, when combined with the large footprints of the
individual blocks, would be uncharacteristic of the locality. [309, 313]
473. On the other hand, I consider that there are features of the design that would
help to relate the proposal to its context. In particular, the movement pattern
described above would reunite the site with the surrounding urban fabric.
Moreover, the layout would create views of important buildings outside the site.
A new ground level view of the Cathedral spire would be created from Anglia
Square and views along the main east/west pedestrian route would be focused
on the Church of St Augustine. The tower would be a new and distinctive
feature. The approach to materials and building typologies would also have the
potential to help integrate the scheme into its surroundings, subject to the
further approvals that would be required. [150]
474. Overall, I do not agree that this would be an ‘anywhere design’. To my mind the
design is a considered response to the surrounding urban fabric. It would create
a distinctive new identity, rather than seeking to replicate that which surrounds
it. That said, the overall height and mass of the proposed development is of
concern to many parties. For example, NS drew attention to the high density of
the proposal as compared with nearby areas. Design South East had concerns
about the bulk and mass of the proposal, commenting that blocks of 10 storeys
could only be considered low rise by comparison with the tower. They went on
to say that as well as being tall, the blocks would be very deep and wide.
I agree that the height and mass of the proposal would be uncharacteristic in
the NCCCA. It seems to me that a key question is the extent to which the
features of the design described above would be successful in integrating the
proposal into its surroundings. I return to that question below, in relation to the
NCCCA as a whole and in relation to individual designated heritage assets.
[268, 269, 312]
Arguments for and against a tall building
475. Several representations argued that Anglia Square is inherently unsuitable for a
tall building, on the basis that (it was suggested) there are very few tall
buildings in Norwich and/or that tall buildings only serve state, civic or
ecclesiastical purposes. In fact, there are several tall buildings in Norwich, as
shown in the evidence of Historic England (HE). Some of these are identified as
negative features in the NCCCA Appraisal and others, such as the recently
completed, have divided opinion. Whilst it is right to say that the strategic
landmarks have state, civic or ecclesiastical functions, other tall buildings in
Norwich have a range of functions. In any event, there is no policy support for
the proposition that a tall building must fulfil a particular function. [155]
476. HE drew attention to the DAS, where it is suggested that the tower would be a
pivotal landmark, a way finder and a strong ‘visual counterpoint’ to the strategic
landmarks. HE (and others) argued that this approach would inevitably result in
competition with the strategic landmarks, thereby harming the ability to
appreciate them. At the Inquiry, the applicants did not pursue the ‘visual
counterpoint’ argument with any vigour. Instead, the applicants’ case
emphasised the role of the tower as an important marker of regeneration and as
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 120
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
a feature that would help give the scheme its own character and identity.
[66, 270, 278]
477. DM Plan Policy DM3(a) refers to landmark buildings at gateways, such as the
Pitt Street roundabout, but the supporting text makes clear that excessively tall
buildings would not be appropriate because of the sensitive historic townscape.
The expectation of the DM Plan is that landmarks at gateways would be marked
by developments of high quality, relying on design aspects other than size and
height to achieve distinctiveness. In policy terms there is, therefore, nothing
that expressly supports a tall building at Anglia Square. Nor is there anything
that rules it out. [239]
478. In my analysis, I have not attached any weight to the concept of a ‘visual
counterpoint’. Moreover, Anglia Square is easy to find, being located at a
convergence of routes, so I do not regard any potential way finding role as
significant. However, for the reasons given above, I consider that the tower
would be a distinctive feature which would create a focal point within the
scheme, thereby contributing to its new identity.
Impacts on the Norwich City Centre Conservation Area
The site and immediate surroundings
479. The 20th century commercial buildings within the application site have been
identified as negative features in the NCCCA Appraisal. Sovereign House and the
multi-storey car park are particularly dominant, due to their scale, poor design
and dilapidated appearance. In addition, the bulk and blank elevations of the
cinema dominate views from Magdalen Street. Part of the existing development
projects out over the western footway to Magdalen Street, creating an
oppressive and uncomfortable pedestrian environment. In the south west corner
of the site there are some 19th century buildings fronting Pitt Street which make
a modest positive contribution to the NCCCA. However, most of the area west of
the Anglia Square buildings is given over to surface car parking. [102]
480. The replacement of the existing commercial buildings and car parks with well-
designed modern buildings would be a significant benefit to the NCCCA. As
discussed above, I consider that the benefits of the scheme would include
greater permeability and legibility, improved streets and squares within the site
and framed views of the Cathedral and the Church of St Augustine. I do not
agree with those who suggested that, in this context, townscape benefits can be
separated from heritage benefits. I consider that the removal of features which
detract from the character and appearance of the NCCCA and their replacement
with well-designed buildings set in an attractive public realm is both a heritage
benefit and a townscape benefit. [84, 102, 148 – 150, 294]
481. Magdalen Street is an important thoroughfare leading from the city centre and
the eastern side is identified as a positive frontage in the NCCCA Appraisal. The
proposal would widen the footway on the western side, replacing the
unattractive overhanging section with well-designed frontage development. The
upper level of the frontage block would be set back such that, as seen from
street level, the three storey elevation would be predominant. This would be in
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 121
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
keeping with the general scale of Magdalen Street. From some viewpoints288
some of the taller elements of Block A would also be seen. HE argued that this
would create a discordant relationship which would be severely harmful.
However, I consider that the taller buildings would be set back far enough into
the site to avoid such harm. Overall, I consider that the proposal would
significantly improve the character and appearance of that part of Magdalen
Street which is north of the St Crispins Road flyover. [276]
482. The taller elements of Block A would be quite prominent as seen from
Cowgate289. However, the stark nature of the existing multi-storey car park is
also very evident from this angle, such that the change would not be harmful.
483. Edward Street is currently dominated by the bulk of the multi-storey car park,
resulting in a very poor townscape quality. Block A would be of comparable
scale where it fronts Edward Street, with the upper levels being set back.
However, as noted above, although elements of the new multi-storey car park
would be visible, the three projecting residential blocks would be the most
prominent in views along the street. New Botolph Street and the northern part
of Pitt Street lack enclosure by buildings, resulting in a street scene that is
dominated by highway infrastructure and surface parking. The proposal would
enclose the frontages with buildings and there would be landscaping and public
realm improvements. The character and appearance of these streets would be
significantly improved.
484. The Church of St Augustine, its surrounding green space and the adjoining
almshouses at Gildencroft are an important grouping at the southern end of St
Augustines Street. The existing buildings at Anglia Square already detract from
this grouping to some extent. However, the height and bulk of the proposed
tower would compete with and distract from the church tower. Blocks E and F,
stepping up towards the southern end of Pitt Street, would rise above the
ridgeline of Gildencroft290. Even allowing for the fact that the tallest buildings in
Block F would be some 170m away, I consider that this would detract from the
green space and the buildings within it, resulting in harm to the character and
appearance of the NCCCA. [102]
485. The NCCCA Appraisal identifies positive frontages, containing numerous listed
and locally listed buildings, on both sides of St Augustines Street. Views towards
the city along St Augustines Street are terminated somewhat abruptly by
Sovereign House. The introduction of appropriately scaled buildings creating a
new frontage facing St Augustines Street would be an improvement in this
regard. The proportions and design details of the new tower would be
appreciated in these views. Even so, the height of the tower would make it quite
a dominant feature. On balance, I consider that the impact on St Augustines
Street would be harmful to the NCCCA, albeit the level of harm would be
relatively low. [295]
288 Views 34 and 43 – these and subsequent references relate to the Compendium of Views
Revision A (CD7.81 SEI t)
289 View 35
290 Views 32 and 33
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 122
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
486. On St Crispins Road, the recladding of Gildengate House and replacement of
Sovereign House have the potential to improve the NCCCA, subject to approval
of detailed designs at reserved matters stage. However, Block F would rise to 12
storeys at the south west corner of the site. The officers’ report referred to the
overall height and massing of the proposal creating a form of development that
would be “strikingly different and unfamiliar”. In my view that comment is
particularly pertinent to Block F because the height and large floorplate of that
block would be prominent at the corner of Pitt Street and St Crispins Road.
[276]
487. Block F would be at one of the gateway locations where DM Plan Policy DM3(a)
refers to new landmark buildings. The immediate context includes the Pitt
Street/St Crispins Road roundabout and modern office buildings at St Crispins
House. Planning permissions have been granted for the conversion and increase
in height of St Crispins House and for redevelopment at St Mary’s Works, to the
south west of the roundabout. Moreover, the heritage assessment suggested
that buildings of 10 to 12 storeys at this point would be likely to have a
moderate impact on the settings of heritage assets. These factors indicate that
a building of some scale could be appropriate here. However, even allowing for
these factors, I consider that the scale and mass of Block F would indeed appear
strikingly different and unfamiliar, to an extent that would cause harm to the
NCCCA. [265]
Middle distance views
488. Tombland, Wensum Street, Fye Bridge and Magdalen Street form an important
route leading north from the city towards Anglia Square. Moving along this
route, parts of the proposal would come into and out of view. From parts of
Tombland291 the top of the tower would be glimpsed above the roof of the Maids
Head Hotel. It would be a small element, at distance, in a rich and varied
townscape. As such, I do not think there would be a material impact on the
NCCCA. The greatest impact would be experienced at the junction of Wensum
Street and Elm Hill. This is a characteristic view of high quality townscape,
which is currently terminated by part of St Clement’s Church and the
easternmost building in Colegate292. The tower and the upper parts of some of
the taller block would rise above those buildings. Being central to the view, the
new buildings would create a new and uncharacteristic focal point, resulting in
harm to the NCCCA. [100, 261]
489. A little further north, at Fye Bridge, only the top of the tower would be visible so
the impact would be less. The proposal would then be out of sight until the
viewer approached the flyover. At this point the existing cinema (together with
the flyover) is a significant detractor from the view along the street293. The
removal of the cinema and replacement with parts of Block A would have a
broadly neutral effect.
490. The NCCCA Appraisal notes that the medieval street pattern is an important
feature of the Colegate character area. The Appraisal refers to a tight urban
291 View 23
292 View 25
293 View 42
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 123
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
grain with enclosed streets creating an intimate feel. Colegate itself runs
east/west and there are narrower streets leading north which afford glimpsed
views towards Anglia Square. Although the sense of being in an historic
environment is particularly strong in Colegate, these glimpsed views include
some modern development at St Crispins House and Anglia Square. For
example, the view along St George Street294, between the Church of St George
Colegate and Bacon House, provides a glimpse of St Crispins House. The
proposed tower would also be seen in this view, albeit behind the extended St
Crispins House. [101, 258]
491. The view north on Calvert Street295 also encompasses modern development,
including the highest part of Sovereign House. Again, the proposal could be
seen here but, to my mind, would not have sufficient impact to detract
materially from the experience of being in Colegate. Overall, I consider that the
proposal would have a neutral effect on the Colegate character area.
Distant views
492. The topography of Norwich is such that there are extensive views over the city
centre from high ground to the east. The six strategic landmarks identified in
the NCCCA Appraisal can be seen together in these views. DM Plan Policy
DM3(c) seeks to protect long views of the major landmarks and specific
viewpoints are identified in appendix 8. Three of these viewpoints equate to the
viewpoints in the townscape and visual impact appraisal (TVIA) which are
discussed below. The strategic landmarks are all designated heritage assets of
high significance in their own right. Collectively, they help to create the skyline
which is such an important feature of the NCCCA. It follows that the grouping of
these assets makes a highly significant contribution to the significance of the
NCCCA as a whole. [86, 87]
493. The existing buildings at Anglia Square are readily apparent in the view from
Mousehold Avenue296. Sovereign House and the multi-storey car park stand out
strongly as negative features. Other than the tower, the proposed development
would appear below the skyline. Whilst the tower would break the skyline, this
would not be harmful because of the improved design and appearance of the
scheme as a whole. The strategic landmarks are not all in view from the TVIA
viewpoint but they can be seen from a nearby informal open space. From this
angle the strategic landmarks are seen interspersed with other tall buildings.
Insofar as they can be appreciated as a group from this location, that
composition would not be harmed by the proposal.
494. The view from St James’ Hill includes a particularly picturesque grouping of the
strategic landmarks297. There are tall buildings on the skyline in the vicinity of
All Saints Green but these appear clearly to the left of the strategic landmarks.
The proposal would appear well to the right. Although the proposed tower would
break the skyline the rest of the development would not. I consider that the
distinctive shape and detailing of the tower would be appreciable at this
294 View 37
295 View 38
296 View 7
297 View 8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 124
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
distance and that there would be sufficient separation from the strategic
landmarks to avoid competition with or distraction from those assets. There is a
fine view of the Cathedral from Kett’s Heights298. From this angle the strategic
landmarks appear closely grouped. The proposed tower would be well over to
the right hand side and would not affect the ability to appreciate the grouping.
[88, 152]
495. In summary, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the ability to
appreciate the NCCCA in distant views. [278]
Conclusions in relation to the NCCCA
496. The proposed development would be visible from other locations in the NCCCA,
some of which are discussed below in relation to individual heritage assets.
However, I do not think that any of these other views would result in a material
impact on the NCCCA. The proposal would result in important benefits to the
character and appearance of the NCCCA, in particular:
• the removal of large scale 20th century commercial buildings which are
perceived as strongly negative features over a wide area;
• the replacement of those buildings, and underused parking lots, with well-
designed buildings;
• creation of an attractive new public realm within the site;
• creation of framed views of the Cathedral and the Church of St Augustine
from within the site; and
• significant improvements to the townscape of Magdalen Street (north of
the flyover), Edward Street, New Botolph Street and the northern part of
Pitt Street.
497. The proposal would also cause harm to the character and appearance of the
NCCCA in the following ways:
• The scale of development would harm the group comprising the Church of
St Augustine, the green space of the churchyard and Gildencroft;
• The development would create an uncharacteristic focal point, distracting
from views along Wensum Street;
• The scale of Block F would be strikingly different to its surroundings,
creating an uncharacteristic feature on a prominent corner location;
• The tower would be a dominant feature in views along St Augustines
Street; and
• Locally listed buildings fronting Pitt Street would be lost.
498. Whether considered individually or collectively, having regard to the significance
of the NCCCA as a whole, I assess the harms to amount to less than substantial
harm in the terms of the Framework. Any harm to the NCCCA is a matter of
298 View 9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 125
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
considerable importance and weight, a matter that I return to below. That said,
I do not think the items above are of equal importance. In my view the first two
items would result in the most important harms. This is because of the high
significance of the affected assets and the coherence and characteristic nature
of the historic environments that would be affected. In relation to the others,
I note that the impact of Block F would be experienced in the context of other
modern development at a location where a development of some scale could
reasonably be expected. In relation to St Augustines Street, there is a balance
of considerations as discussed above. The locally listed buildings make only a
modest contribution to the NCCCA.
[80 - 83, 160, 161, 226, 230, 249, 300 – 303]
499. Drawing all this together, I consider that the benefits would outweigh the
harms, such that the proposal would result in a net benefit to the character and
appearance of the NCCCA.
Impacts on listed buildings and other designated heritage assets
500. There are no designated heritage assets within the application site and no such
assets would be physically affected by the proposal. In all cases the impacts (or
potential impacts) would be on the setting of the asset in question. As noted
above, the significance of the assets was agreed. It is set out in the SoCG on
the significance of heritage assets. At the Inquiry, no party argued that there
would be substantial harm to any designated heritage asset, with the exception
of the suggestion by Save Britain’s Heritage (SBH) that there would be
substantial harm to the NCCCA (which I have considered above). I agree that,
in all cases where there would be harm to the significance of a designated
heritage asset, that harm would be less than substantial in the terms of the
Framework. In considering impacts on setting I have been mindful of the staged
approach set out in HE’s publication GPA3 The Setting of Heritage Assets. [253]
The environs of Anglia Square
501. No 75 Magdalen Street is a Grade II listed building (LBgII) on the east side of
the street, facing Anglia Square. The improvements to the townscape of
Magdalen Street would enhance the setting and significance of this asset.
Buildings further to the north on Magdalen Street299 (LBgII) would also see
some enhancement to their settings, although the effect would be slight as they
are not as directly affected as No 75.
502. The Church of St Augustine (LBgI) is a medieval church set within a green space
which enables the building to be appreciated in the round. To the south, the
churchyard is enclosed by the almshouses at Nos 2 – 12 Gildencroft (LBgII).
The height of the proposed tower would compete with and distract from an
important view of the church tower300, harming the ability to experience the
asset. The height and bulk of the tower and Blocks E and F would rise above the
roof line of the almshouses, competing with and distracting from the asset and
eroding the secluded feel of the green space. Although the existing buildings at
Anglia Square detract from the green space to some extent, this effect is limited
299 Cat and Fiddle (No 105), Nos 107, 109, 113, 115 and 117
300 View 32
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 126
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
by distance. The proposals would improve the existing view of the church from
Anglia Square but this would not outweigh the harmful effect I have identified.
Overall, I consider that there would be a moderate level of harm to both assets.
[102]
503. The listed buildings (LBgII) along St Augustines Street301 include houses and
shops which form coherent and characteristic frontages on both sides of the
street. Insofar as the settings of these buildings contribute to their significance,
that contribution comes mainly from being part of those frontages, which would
be unchanged. The existing buildings at Anglia Square detract from views along
the street but this has limited impact on the ability to experience individual
listed buildings. Consequently, although the tower would be a dominant feature
as discussed above, the impact on individual buildings would be limited. The
harm to each of the assets would be minor.
504. There are listed buildings along Sussex Street, from where there is a potential
view of the proposed development at the junction with The Lathes302. However,
even allowing for seasonal effects, I consider that the degree of visibility would
be limited by vegetation and intervening buildings such that there would be no
harm to these assets. The significance of No 71 New Botolph Street (LBgII*)
relates to a 15th century brick undercroft. This is beneath a 20th century
structure which is itself of no interest. The historic fabric is not visible in the
street scene so setting makes no contribution to the significance of this asset. It
would therefore be unaffected.
505. A section of the city walls, about 20m in length, at Magpie Road is part of a
scheduled monument. The nearby buildings add nothing to the ability to
experience the asset. Its significance resides mainly in the historic fabric and
the evidence it provides, together with other remaining sections of the walls, of
the medieval defences. However, the immediate setting has benefitted from a
simple landscape treatment which allows one either to stand back and look at
the form and scale of the wall, or to approach and inspect it close up. Although
the tower would be seen above the wall303, in my view it would have no effect
on the ability to experience the asset.
506. St Saviour’s Church, Magdalen Street (LBgI) is located to the south of the
flyover which carries St Crispins Road over Magdalen Street. The flyover is a
strongly negative feature which detracts from the setting of the church and the
street generally. There are other listed buildings further south on Magdalen
Street304. These buildings are seen as part of coherent and characterful
frontages on either side of Magdalen Street, a factor which contributes positively
to their significance. Those frontages, and that contribution, would not be
altered. The street scene is abruptly terminated by the flyover, such that
nothing to the north of it contributes positively to the settings of these assets.
301 Nos 1 – 11 (odd), rear of Nos 13 and 15, 21 – 29 (odd), 55, 22 – 36A (even), 42 to 52
(even), Catherine Wheel Public House, St Augustines Street
302 View 51, Nos 1A – 11, 13 – 19, 21, 27 and 29 Sussex Street (LBgII)
303 View 17
304 Block to rear of No 24, Nos 42, 44, 46, 48, 29, 41, 47 and 49 Magdalen Street (LBgII) and
Gurney Court, 31 – 35 Magdalen Street (LBgII*)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 127
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
The existing cinema, which is seen above the flyover, is a further detractor305.
Removal of the cinema, as proposed, would therefore be a benefit. Whilst parts
of Block A would be in view, the scale of development would step up from
Magdalen Street as described above. Overall, I consider that the effect of the
proposal on these listed buildings would be neutral.
The strategic landmarks
507. The strategic landmarks identified in the NCCCA are the Cathedral (LBgI), the
Castle (LBgI), the RC Cathedral (LBgI), the Church of St Peter Mancroft (LBgI),
the Church of St Giles (LBgI) and the City Hall clock tower (City Hall as a whole
is LBgII*). Setting makes an important contribution to the significance of these
assets, all of which stand out on the Norwich skyline. As discussed above, I do
not consider that the proposal would be harmful in relation to distant views from
high ground to the east. There are however some further views to take into
account for some of these assets.
508. The Cathedral can be seen across the open playing fields of Castle Meadow306,
rising above a line of mature trees. This is a picturesque view of the Cathedral
in which its scale and proportions can be well appreciated. The proposed tower
would be visible, although it would be well below the general line of the tree
canopy. It is likely to be more visible in winter. Even so, the effects of relative
scale and distance are such that it would in no way compete with the Cathedral.
Moreover, there would be only a small element of distraction from the asset.
Even so, given the importance of this view, I think that would amount to
material harm, albeit at a low level.
509. The Cathedral spire can be seen in distant views from Aylesham Road and St
Augustines Street307. In these views Sovereign House appears close to the spire
and detracts from it. The proposal would be taller but with greater separation
from the spire, resulting in a neutral effect. The newly created view of the spire
from Anglia Square would enhance the ability to appreciate the Cathedral to
some extent but this would not outweigh the harm to the view from Castle
Meadow. Overall, I consider that there would be minor harm to the significance
of the Cathedral due to the effect of the proposal on the view from Castle
Meadow. [103]
510. In relation to the Castle, it is necessary to consider views out from the ramparts
and battlements308 as part of the assessment of setting. The Castle is sited on a
spur of high ground and there are sweeping panoramic views out over the valley
of the River Wensum. It is a commanding position, in both a military and a
symbolic sense. The existing buildings at Anglia Square exert a negative
influence but they form a relatively small element in the overall sweep of the
view. From the battlements there are fine views of the other strategic
landmarks which would be unaffected by the proposal. The proposed tower
would break the skyline. However, I consider that the distinctive shape and
detailing of the tower would be appreciated in this view.
305 View 42
306 View 60
307 Views 14, 15 and 49
308 Views 12 and 54
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 128
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
511. The lower blocks would also be clearly in view, together with new development
at St Crispins House and St Mary’s Works. As seen from the battlements, they
would not break the skyline. As seen from the ramparts, some of the blocks
would be level with or slightly above the skyline. At present, the strongly
horizontal emphasis of the existing commercial buildings is evident. Whilst the
extent of new development would be apparent, the articulation of the blocks
and variations in height would help to assimilate it. Overall, although the
proposal would be clearly visible, I do not think that it would harm the ability to
appreciate the relationship between the Castle, the river valley and the city. The
proposal would not therefore cause harm to the setting or significance of the
Castle. [254]
512. A small part of the tower would be visible from the area in front of the Forum in
a view which also includes City Hall and the Church of St Peter Mancroft309.
However, it would be a small and distant element in a busy urban scene. It
would not affect the ability to experience the assets in question. I conclude that
the proposal would not result in harm to the settings of the Castle, the RC
Cathedral, the Church of St Peter Mancroft, the Church of St Giles or City Hall.
[98]
Tombland, Wensum Street and Fye Bridge
513. From Tombland, part of the tower would appear above the roof of the Maids
Head Hotel (LBgII)310. However, the striking black and white architecture of the
Hotel attracts the eye and the slight visibility of the tower would not materially
distract from the asset. Erpingham Gate (LBgI and scheduled monument),
which is not seen from the TVIA viewpoint, faces this part of Tombland and its
significance would also be unaffected. The Cathedral Close includes some highly
graded heritage assets311. Following the amendment to the height of the tower,
the proposal would not be visible to any extent that would affect the
appreciation of the Close so none of these assets would be affected.
514. The Church of St Simon and St Jude (LBgI), No 40 Elm Hill (LBgII) and Nos 11 -
13 Wensum Street (LBgII) are all close to the junction of Elm Hill and Wensum
Street312. As noted above, the proposal would create an uncharacteristic focal
point in views along Wensum Street, causing harm to the NCCCA. This
streetscape is part of the surroundings in which the assets are experienced so
there would be some harm to their respective settings. However, the assets are
very close to the viewer and it is the nearby buildings that enable them to be
experienced as an integral part of the intimate streetscape of the city. Thus
although the long view would be harmed, the harm to the significance of the
individual assets would be minor. [100]
309 View 11
310 View 23
311 Nos 69 and 70 Upper Close (LBgI), No 71 Upper Close (LBgII*), Carnary Chapel (LBgI and
scheduled monument)
312 View 25
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 129
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
515. In views northwards along Wensum Street, part of the Church of St Clement
(LBgI) is seen in front of Nos 3 - 5 Colegate (LBgII)313. As noted above, the
extent of visibility of the proposal would reduce as the viewer moves north
along Wensum Street. As seen from Fye Bridge314, the proposed tower would
appear incongruously above the ridge of Nos 3 - 5, which would cause an
element of distraction from the assets. However, only a small part of the
church, and very little of Nos 3 - 5, is visible at this point so this is not a view
which is particularly important to the ability to experience these assets. There
are closer and better views available further along Fye Bridge Street, and from
Colegate, which would be unaffected by the proposal.
516. Fye Bridge itself is listed (LBgII) and there is a cluster of listed buildings on the
north side of the bridge315 which are seen in the view described above.
Together, these buildings form a lively and varied townscape which (as seen
from the bridge) would be only slightly impacted by a glimpse of the proposed
tower. The proposal would be barely visible, or invisible, in closer views. There
is also a partial view of the Church of St Clement from the riverside walk to the
west of Fye Bridge. The church tower appears in a gap in the riverside buildings.
Part of the proposed tower would appear in the same gap, resulting in an
element of distraction316. In conclusion, whilst there would be harm to the
settings and the significance of the Church of St Clement, Nos 3 - 5 Colegate
and the other listed buildings in the Fye Bridge group, I would characterise the
degree of harm as minor in each case.
Colegate character area
517. St George’s Church (LBgI) and Bacon’s House (LBgII*) stand in Colegate, either
side of St George Street. As discussed above, the view along St George
Street317 provides a glimpse of modern office buildings at St Crispins House,
which are to be extended in height. The proposed tower would also be seen in
this view, behind the extended St Crispins House. The listed buildings are
experienced in the context of Colegate, which has a strong sense of enclosure
and historic character. This setting contributes to their significance. The glimpse
of modernity currently experienced at St George Street does little to undermine
the historic character because it is experienced only fleetingly. Moreover the
listed buildings, which are themselves powerful features, and the street scene of
Colegate are very much closer to the viewer. The effect of the proposal would
be to increase, slightly, the sense that there is some modern development to
the north. There would be very little by way of distraction from the assets,
resulting in no more than minor harm to their significance.
313 Nos 3 to 5 Colegate are at the corner of Colegate and Fye Bridge Street and it is
convenient to discuss them here rather than in the section on Colegate
314 View 56
315 Nos 2, 7, 9 and The Mischief Public House, Fye Bridge Street (LBgII), Nos 11, 13 and 15
Fye Bridge Street (LBgII*)
316 View 27 in the March 2018 Verified Views Study (CD4.86 Volume 3 j), noting that this view
shows the earlier design for a 25 storey tower
317 View 37
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 130
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
518. Muspole Street leads off Colegate and the setting of the listed buildings here318
includes the historic character and enclosed nature of Colegate. There are also
views of modern development to the north at St Crispins House. The proposed
extensions to St Crispins House would be readily apparent from here319. Part of
the proposed development would appear behind those extensions. I do not think
that any additional impact would materially affect the ability to experience these
assets.
519. For Octagon Chapel (LBgII*) and Nos 27 and 29 Colegate (LBgII), any visibility
of the proposed development in views of these buildings would be too limited to
have any material impact. There are listed buildings in Calvert Street320, the
northern end of which is bridged by modern development. Their setting within
Calvert Street adds to their significance but the application site makes no
contribution. Although the view along the street would change, there would be
no effect on the ability to appreciate these buildings. Nos 63, 80 and 82 (LBgII)
St George Street are located between Colegate and St Crispins Road. There are
modern commercial buildings on the south side of St Crispins Road which lie
between these buildings and the application site. Consequently, they would be
unaffected.
520. Doughty’s Hospital (LBgII) is inward-facing, built on three sides of a courtyard.
Insofar as setting contributes to its significance, the ability to experience the
asset is largely confined to the courtyard321. Gildengate House dominates the
skyline in the view northwards from within the courtyard. Its strong horizontal
lines and generally poor design and materials stand in stark contrast to the
architecture of the listed building, resulting in considerable harm to its
significance. Recladding Gildengate House, as proposed, offers the potential to
mitigate this impact (subject to subsequent approval of reserved matters). That
would be a benefit. However, the height and mass of Block G would add to the
sense of this modest building being dwarfed by its neighbours. On balance, the
effect would be harmful. However, as much harm has been done already, the
proposal would cause only minor harm to the significance of the asset.
521. St Mary’s Church at St Mary’s Plain (LBgI) is set within an oval churchyard
which allows it to be viewed in the round, both close up and from surrounding
streets and footpaths322. This setting, which would be unaffected, makes a
strong positive contribution to its significance. The wider surroundings are
varied in character with modern development to the north, between the church
and the application site. These wider surroundings add nothing to the ability to
experience the asset. Visibility of the proposal would be very limited and would
not be harmful to the setting or the significance of the asset.
522. The Church of St Martin at Oak (LBgI) is set within a small enclave of green
space which enables it to be appreciated from the adjoining streets, thereby
contributing to its significance323. Beyond that, setting adds little to the
318 Nos 1 – 9 and the Woolpack, Muspole Street (LBgII)
319 View 36
320 Nos 2 to 9 Octagon Court (LBgII*), Nos 9, 11, 20 and 22 Calvert Street (LBgII)
321 View 44
322 View 52
323 View 29
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 131
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
significance of the asset. It is hemmed in by a factory building on one side and
the nearby townscape is fragmented and lacking in coherence. The proposed
development would terminate the view along St Martin’s Lane, which passes
alongside the church. Whilst that would be a significant change in the view, it
would not be harmful because the change would affect something which does
not currently contribute to the significance of the listed building. Nos 47 and 49
(LBgII) are located further along St Martin’s Lane. The townscape here is
similarly lacking in coherence, such that setting contributes very little to the
significance of these assets. Again, the surroundings would be changed but this
would not be harmful to the listed buildings.
523. Nos 98 – 100 Oak Street form part of a characterful frontage to Oak Street
which contributes to their significance. The nearby large scale highways
infrastructure of St Crispins Road is a detractor. That relationship would not
change. The application site makes no contribution to the significance of these
listed buildings. Although views along St Crispins Road would change324, this
would have no impact on the ability to experience these assets.
Elm Hill and Princes Street
524. There is a concentration of designated assets around the junction of Elm Hill and
Princes Street325. These include St Peter Hungate (LBgI), the Former Dominican
Friary (Blackfriars), St Andrew’s Hall and Blackfriars Hall (LBgI and scheduled
monument), the Briton’s Arms (LBgII*) and Nos 2, 4, 6 and 8 Elm Hill (LBgII).
The buildings are experienced within a street scene that is tightly enclosed,
creating a strong historic character. Although it would be possible to obtain
some glimpses of the proposed tower, these would be fleeting views for a
person moving along the street whose attention would be focused on the
powerful historic environment around them. If such a person was aware of the
proposal at all, the very small degree of visibility combined with the effects of
distance would mean that there would be no harm to the settings of these
assets. [99]
Other listed buildings
525. HE argued that there would be harm to the medieval churches of Norwich as a
group. These are most densely concentrated in the slopes down towards the
river. I agree that the medieval churches make an important contribution to the
townscape. However, I have concluded above that the proposal would not be
harmful to the long views of the strategic landmarks from high ground to the
east of the city centre. For the same reasons, I do not think that there would be
harm to the medieval churches, other than those where I have specifically
identified harm in this report. [282]
526. The setting of St James’ Church (LBgI) is dominated by large scale highways
infrastructure and contributes very little to the significance of the asset326. From
in front of the church the existing commercial buildings at Anglia Square are
visible. The proposed development would be similarly visible. That would be a
324 View 30
325 Views 22 and 55
326 View 19
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 132
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
change in the view but it would have no impact on the ability to experience the
asset.
527. The Guildhall (LBgI), No 1 Guildhall Hill (LBgII) and the War Memorial (LBgII*)
can be seen in views from Millennium Plain (in front of the Forum)327 in which a
small part of the tower would be visible on the skyline. However, there are
many closer and better views of these assets, all of which would be unaffected.
Even in this particular view, the limited extent of visibility and the effects of
distance are such that there would be no harm to the setting of these assets.
528. Nos 45 – 51 London Street (former National Westminster Bank) (LBgII) has a
domed cupola. The building is mainly experienced from the adjoining streets
and these views would be unaffected. However, the cupola can also be seen
against the sky from the Castle ramparts328. The proposed tower would appear
behind the cupola, distracting from it. Having regard to the overall significance
of the asset, I consider that this would amount to minor harm. In the same
view, the tower of St Andrew’s Church (LBgI) appears close to the cupola. There
are many closer and better views of the church. Nevertheless, in this particular
view there would be an element of distraction from the view of the church
tower, resulting in minor harm to the significance of St Andrew’s Church.
529. St Helen’s Church (LBgI) can be seen in the view across Cathedral Meadow329.
This is discussed above in relation to the Cathedral, where I concluded that the
proposed tower would result in only a small element of distraction. Even so,
given the importance of this view, I found that there would be minor harm to
the Cathedral. For the same reason I consider that there would be minor harm
to the significance of St Helen’s Church.
Registered parks and gardens
530. Waterloo Park is a Grade II* registered park330. The Cathedral spire is visible
from some points within the park, as a distant feature in a gap in a line of trees.
This is a glimpsed view which does not have a strong influence on the way the
park is experienced. Although the park is bounded by trees there are also views
of buildings, such that one is aware of being in a park within a wider urban
area. There would be filtered views of the proposed development, which is likely
to be more visible in winter. However, the effect of distance is such that I do not
think that there would be harm to the registered park. [378]
531. Catton Hall Park is also a Grade II* registered park. Norfolk Gardens Trust
comments that Humphry Repton used the Cathedral spire as a key feature of
his design for the park. However, there is no evidence that the spire is visible
today. In any event, the TVIA concluded that the proposal would not be
visible331 and, from what I saw, I have no reason to doubt that finding. [378]
Impacts on non-designated heritage assets
327 View 11
328 View 12
329 View 60
330 View 48
331 Views 61 and 62
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 133
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
532. The locally listed buildings at Nos 43 – 45 Pitt Street would be demolished. They
comprise a pair of 19th century houses, with No 43 having a pub frontage. They
are of local architectural and historic value, which would be lost.
533. All other impacts on known non-designated heritage assets would arise from
impacts on setting. There would be some harm to the significance of locally
listed buildings in St Augustines Street and Wensum Street. For the reasons
discussed in relation to the listed buildings in those streets, the degree of harm
would be minor. On Magdalen Street, there would be some benefit to the
significance of locally listed buildings north of the flyover and no impact on
those to the south. This would be for the same reasons discussed in relation to
listed buildings in Magdalen Street. I consider that there would be sufficient
separation from the proposed development to avoid harm to the locally listed
buildings at Malzy Court.
534. The application site has the potential to contain archaeological assets which are
as yet unknown. Any impacts on such assets could be managed through
appropriate conditions requiring a scheme of archaeological investigations.
Conclusions on the historic environment
535. The proposal would have both beneficial and harmful effects on the character
and appearance of the NCCCA. On balance, there would be a net benefit so the
character and appearance of the NCCCA would be enhanced.
536. In all cases where there would be harm to designated heritage assets this would
be less than substantial harm in the terms of the Framework. There would be
harm that I would characterise as moderate to the following:
• The Church of St Augustine (LBgI)
• Nos 2 – 12 Gildencroft (LBgII)
537. There would be harm that I would characterise as minor to the following:
Grade I
• Cathedral
• Church of St Simon and St Jude
• Church of St Clement
• Church of St George
• St Helen’s Church
• St Andrew’s Church
Grade II*
• Bacon’s House
• Nos 11 – 13 Fye Bridge Street
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 134
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Grade II
• St Augustines Street group
• Nos 11 – 13 Wensum Street
• No 40 Elm Hill
• Nos 3 – 5 Colegate
• Nos 2, 7 and 9 Fye Bridge Street
• The Mischief public house, Fye Bridge Street
• Fye Bridge
• Doughty’s Hospital
• Nos 45 - 51 London Street (former National Westminster Bank)
I have found that there would be some benefits to the settings of listed
buildings, in particular the Cathedral, the Church of St Augustine and No 75
Magdalen Street.
538. The significance of the locally listed buildings at Nos 43 – 45 Pitt Street would
be lost. There would be some minor harm to the significance of locally listed
buildings in St Augustines Street and Wensum Street. There would be some
minor benefit to the significance of locally listed buildings in Magdalen Street
north of the flyover.
539. The PGN is not part of the development plan although it is a material
consideration. Insofar as the PGN relates to heritage, I consider that the
proposal would enhance the NCCCA and would create or enhance views from
public spaces to local landmarks. The NCCCA Appraisal is not part of the
development plan although it is referred to in JCS Policy 11. With regard to the
guidance in the Appraisal, the proposal would remove negative landmarks and
reinstate historic street patterns, albeit not in precisely the same alignments. It
would, in the main, preserve views of city wide landmarks (noting that there
would be some harm to the setting of the Cathedral). It would respect the scale
of buildings in Magdalen Street and create significant improvements to the
townscape of Magdalen Street (north of the flyover), Edward Street, New
Botolph Street and the northern part of Pitt Street.
540. On the other hand, it would not integrate with the context and grain of its
surroundings in some important respects. In particular, the scale of
development would harm the group comprising the Church of St Augustine, the
green space of the churchyard and Gildencroft, it would create an
uncharacteristic focal point, distracting from views along Wensum Street, the
scale of Block F would be strikingly different to its surroundings, creating an
uncharacteristic feature on a prominent corner location and the tower would be
a dominant feature in views along St Augustines Street. Overall, there would be
some accordance with the guidance set out in the Appraisal and some conflict.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 135
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Harm to designated heritage assets – the balance required by the Framework
541. Any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance
and weight. Where there would be less than substantial harm, paragraph 196
requires this to be balanced against the public benefits of the scheme. Public
benefits are not limited to heritage benefits.
542. I have identified the following heritage benefits relating to the character and
appearance of the NCCCA:
• the removal of large scale 20th century commercial buildings which are
perceived as strongly negative features over a wide area;
• the replacement of those buildings, and underused parking lots, with well-
designed buildings;
• creation of an attractive new public realm within the site;
• creation of framed views of the Cathedral and the Church of St Augustine
from within the site; and
• significant improvements to the townscape of Magdalen Street (north of
the flyover), Edward Street, New Botolph Street and the northern part of
Pitt Street.
I attach significant weight to these heritage benefits.
543. In addition, I have identified benefits to the settings of individual listed
buildings, namely the Cathedral, the Church of St Augustine and No 75
Magdalen Street. The degree of benefit in each case is minor in relation to the
overall significance of the asset. I have also identified minor benefits to the
settings of some non-designated heritage assets on Magdalen Street (north of
the flyover).
544. I have identified the following social, economic and environmental benefits:
• Securing the regeneration of a strategic brownfield site;
• A significant contribution to meeting housing need in Norwich;
• A significant contribution to meeting the need for affordable housing in
Norwich;
• A significant net gain in employment, helping to create the conditions in
which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Insofar as the current
condition of the site is a barrier to investment, that barrier would be
removed; and
• Supporting the role that Anglia Square plays in the hierarchy of centres,
promoting the long term vitality and viability of the LDC.
I attach significant weight to each of these public benefits.
545. My overall assessment is that the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the
harm to the listed buildings identified above. The conclusion is the same
whether the listed buildings are considered individually or collectively.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 136
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Harm to non-designated heritage assets
546. The Framework requires harm to non-designated assets to be taken into
account. The significance of the locally listed buildings at Nos 43 – 45 Pitt Street
would be lost. There would also be some minor harm to the significance of
locally listed buildings in St Augustines Street and Wensum Street, through
development in their settings. The public benefits are the same as those
discussed above. In my view they outweigh the harm to non-designated
heritage assets.
Conclusion on the historic environment
547. I conclude that the character and appearance of the NCCCA would be enhanced.
However, there would be harm to a number of individual listed buildings
through development in their settings. The settings of the buildings in question
would not be preserved. Having weighed the public benefits against the harm to
significance, I find that the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the harm,
thereby providing the clear and convincing justification required by the
Framework. The conclusion is the same whether the listed buildings are
considered individually or collectively. There would also be harm to some non-
designated heritage assets which would be outweighed by the public benefits.
Overall, the proposal would therefore accord with the policies of the Framework
relating to the historic environment.
The effect of the proposal on air quality
The air quality assessments
548. The UK Air Quality objective for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO ) is an annual mean of
2
40 µg/m3 and the objective for particulate matter (PM ) is also an annual mean
10
of 40 µg/m3. In addition, there is an hourly objective for NO and a 24 hour
2
objective for PM . In 2012 the Council declared an Air Quality Management
10
Area (AQMA) covering the whole of the city centre, including the application
site, due to exceedances of the annual mean objective for NO . Various
2
iterations of the Air Quality Assessment (AQA) were before the Inquiry. It is
convenient to start with AQA version 3, which was submitted with the proofs of
evidence.
549. AQA version 3 uses monitoring data collected by the Council in 2018 at three
monitoring points in Magdalen Street and St Augustines Street. The data was
collected by diffusion tubes (DT). When DT data is used a bias correction factor
is usually applied. Either a locally derived factor or a national factor can be used
and in this case the Council applied a local bias correction factor. Modelling was
then undertaken, taking account of traffic and weather data, to provide a
baseline for 9 receptor points around the periphery of the application site. This
showed that, in the baseline situation, the annual mean NO objective was being
2
exceeded at monitoring point DT11 (St Augustines Street) and at 4 receptors on
the edge of the site.
550. The AQA then modelled future levels of NO in various scenarios. The ‘policy
2
applied’ scenario uses the Emissions Factor Toolkit version 9 (EFT) published by
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in May 2019.
The EFT seeks to represent anticipated improvements to the road vehicle fleet
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 137
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
resulting from Government policy, for example in relation to vehicle exhaust
emissions standards. The modelling for the year 2031 with the development in
place showed that, in the policy applied scenario, all of the monitoring and
receptor points would meet the annual mean objective for NO . However, if no
2
account is taken of improvements to the vehicle fleet, there would be
exceedances at ground floor level at monitoring points DT9 and DT11 (St
Augustines Street) and 4 receptor points. There would be no exceedances at
first floor level or above, where the great majority of the proposed residential
units would be located.
551. During the course of the Inquiry the Council’s monitoring data for 2019 became
available. This showed that measured NO levels at two locations in Magdalen
2
Street and at Edward Street were in fact lower than the modelled levels (based
on 2018 data) in similar locations and were meeting the annual objective. The
modelling was updated using the 2019 baseline data together with the
Calculator Using Realistic Emissions for Diesels, version 3A (CURED v3A), to
represent the ‘policy applied’ scenario. On this basis, with the development in
place, all of the monitoring points and all but one of the modelled receptors
would meet the annual objective in 2031. Although Receptor B (Magdalen
Street) would not meet the objective at ground level, there would be no
residential accommodation at this point so the objective would not apply.
The objections raised to the AQA
552. Norwich Cycling Campaign (CYC) argued that having three versions of the AQA
before the Inquiry was confusing. It was suggested that the differences between
the modelled values in each version were so great that any comparison between
them is meaningless and none of the models is to be trusted. [335 – 338]
553. CYC was particularly concerned about the Council’s use of a local bias correction
factor in its Air Quality Annual Status Report 2019 (AQASR), on the basis that
previous AQASRs had used a national bias correction factor. It was suggested
that the factor chosen was out of kilter with those used in previous years and
that this resulted in undue optimism being built into the modelling for AQA
version 3. Further concerns were expressed that a calibration factor used in the
modelling, relating to meteorological data, also imported undue optimism into
the modelling. At the Inquiry the applicants referred to comments of the
Inspector examining the Wealden Local Plan to the effect that the use of
CURED v3A would represent a precautionary approach. CYC disputed this on the
basis that the scale and nature of the AQA carried out for the Wealden Local
Plan was very different, and (in their view) more trustworthy, than the AQAs
before this Inquiry. [339, 343, 344 - 346]
Discussion of the AQA methodology
554. It is no criticism of the applicants to say that there were three versions of the
AQA before the Inquiry. The work was originally done in connection with the ES.
Subsequently, the application was called in and it became apparent that air
quality would be an issue at the Inquiry. Moreover, the time frame for
implementation of the scheme had changed. It was therefore reasonable to
update the AQA at that point. The Council’s 2019 monitoring data then became
available during the Inquiry process so it was reasonable to take that into
account as well. I note that the monitoring locations were not the same at each
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 138
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
stage so it would not be appropriate to compare the three AQAs as if they were
done on the same basis. [128, 192]
555. My approach is to take the AQA version 3 as a starting point because the
modelling is based on 2018 monitoring data which has been formally reported
to DEFRA in the Council’s AQASR. It is relevant to note that AQA version 2 was
based on 2017 monitoring which did not include a full year’s data in all
locations. This is a further reason for taking AQA version 3 as my starting point.
I take account of the modelling based on the 2019 monitoring data as a
sensitivity test. In submitting its AQASR the Council was required to use either a
local or a national bias correction factor and to give reasons for that choice.
Cogent reasons have been given for the Council’s choice of a local factor,
relating to good correlation between DT results and a chemiluminescent
analyser. I see no reason to doubt that the choice of correction factor was made
for proper scientific reasons, notwithstanding that a different factor was used in
previous years. [123, 194, 196, 198]
556. There was no evidence before the Inquiry as to the significance of the disputed
calibration factor relating to meteorological data. Consequently, whilst I note
that CYC has a concern on this point, there is nothing before me to support a
conclusion that the results of the assessment should be set aside on this basis.
557. At the Inquiry there was discussion as to whether, in principle, it is right to take
account of anticipated improvements in air quality as a result of Government
policy. Although the Council did not take account of such improvements at the
time it considered the application, it now considers that it is right to do so.
I agree. The EFT User Guide 2019, which is published by DEFRA, states that:
“It is a tool that allows users to calculate road vehicle pollutant emission rates
for oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter for a specified year, road type,
vehicle speed and vehicle fleet composition”. (emphasis added)
To my mind that makes it clear that DEFRA is expecting anticipated changes in
vehicle emissions to be factored in to assessments such as this. The Wealden
Local Plan examination, where the Inspector commented that it would be
unreasonable to assume no improvements over time, is an example of this
approach in action. [190]
558. The Wealden Local Plan examination Inspector characterised CURED as being
conservative and consistent with the precautionary principle in the context of
reservations that had been expressed about EFT version 9 at that event. For
present purposes it matters not whether CURED is characterised as
‘precautionary’. At Wealden, the Habitats Regulations were relevant to the air
quality issues under discussion. Whilst the Habitats Regulations are also
relevant to this application, air quality is not at issue in that context. The
relevance of the Wealden example to this case is that CURED was found to be
conservative by comparison with EFT. Indeed, CYC accepted in the Air Quality
SoCG that CURED v3A could properly be used as a sensitivity test. I conclude
that it is appropriate to use CURED v3A as part of a sensitivity test, as the
applicants have done. [117, 121, 191]
559. The essence of CYC’s case on the AQA methodology is that the outputs are
untrustworthy and should not be relied on by the decision maker. For the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 139
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
reasons given above, I do not share that view. I consider that the information
before the Secretary of State is sufficient for air quality to be properly taken into
account in this decision.
Other matters raised by Norwich Cycling Campaign
560. CYC argued that the proposal would lead to increased traffic in the St
Augustines gyratory system, including at locations which already exceed the
annual mean objective for NO , adversely affecting existing residential
2
properties at Edward Street and St Augustines Street. On this basis the proposal
was said to represent unsustainable development. CYC submitted that
whichever of the AQA versions is considered, the level of pollutants is always
higher with the development than without. [323 – 326, 348]
561. Whilst it is true that traffic would increase in some locations that are currently
not meeting the annual mean objective, it is not the case that any development
that increases traffic in an AQMA is inevitably unlawful or in conflict with
national or local policy. The appropriate approach is to take air quality into
account alongside other material considerations, consistent with the Shirley
case. Those considerations include the fact that the application site contains a
great deal of vacant floorspace and a large unused multi-storey car park. Traffic
levels in the baseline situation are lower than they would be if the site were fully
in use. Moreover, there is a policy imperative to put this strategic brownfield
site to better use in accordance with the development plan. That will inevitably
result in some additional traffic compared to the existing situation. Important
considerations include the scale and effect of any increase in air pollution and
whether this particular proposal provides appropriate mitigation, including
through taking opportunities to promote sustainable travel choices.
[115, 181, 182, 183, 187]
562. CYC also drew attention to scientific evidence that air pollution can lead to
health impacts at levels below those reflected in the current regulatory limits.
However, paragraph 181 of the Framework states that planning decisions should
sustain and contribute towards relevant limit values or national objectives for
pollutants. It is therefore the national objectives that are relevant to planning
decisions such as this. [186, 327 – 330]
Conclusions on air quality
563. The impacts on air quality during construction were considered in the ES. They
were not controversial at the Inquiry. At the request of the Planning
Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, the applicants provided an
updated assessment of the likely effects of demolition. Suggested condition 28
would require the submission of a Construction and Environment Management
Plan which would include consideration of construction traffic and dust
suppression measures. I consider that this would provide a suitable means of
managing impacts on air quality during construction. [10]
564. The pollutants of concern during the operational phase are NO and PM .
2 10
Whichever of the AQAs is considered, the levels for PM would be well below
10
target levels. With regard to NO , I consider that it is right to take account of
2
anticipated improvements to the vehicle fleet. AQA version 3 shows that at the
completion date for the proposed development the annual mean objective would
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 140
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
be met at all relevant locations. Consideration of the 2019 monitoring data,
together with use of CURED v3A, is a helpful sensitivity test which adds
confidence to this conclusion. [198]
565. The proposals include consideration of mitigation measures. Within the scheme
there is an option for mechanical ventilation for any facades that are subject to
elevated levels of NO at early stages of the development process. Suggested
2
condition 42 requires updated AQAs, informed by further monitoring, for each
phase of the development. This would enable any mitigation within the scheme
to be fine-tuned in the light of up to date information. With regard to impacts
outside the scheme, the proposals include measures to promote sustainable
transport choices. These are discussed further below.
566. Taking a broader view, there is a need for a great deal of new housing in
Norwich, South Norfolk and Broadland. Locating 1,250 dwellings at the
application site, which is in a very accessible location, is likely to reduce vehicle
trips in the plan area as a whole in comparison with locating those dwellings
elsewhere. This is likely to be beneficial in terms of air quality. The extent of
this benefit is not quantifiable on the evidence before the Inquiry, so I attach
only limited weight to it. Nevertheless, it is still a point in favour of the scheme
within the overall assessment of air quality. [118, 119, 187]
567. Drawing all this together, I consider that the proposal would be appropriate for
its location taking account of likely effects on health and living conditions. No
conflicts with the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan have been identified.
Opportunities to mitigate impacts have been identified and the proposal would
contribute towards compliance with relevant national objectives. I conclude that
the proposal would accord with the Framework and that air quality is not a
matter that weighs against the grant of planning permission.
Viability and the prospects for delivery of the scheme as a whole
568. The applicant has submitted a viability assessment which has been reviewed on
behalf of the Council by the Valuation Office Agency. The various inputs to the
assessment were found to be appropriate. On the applicant’s assessment the
scheme would provide a profit on cost of 16.4%, a profit on gross development
value of 14.7% and an internal rate of return of 20.2%. The position agreed
between the Council, the applicants and HE is that the viability of the scheme is
marginal in current economic conditions. On the basis that the applicants have
confirmed their intention to deliver the scheme, these parties agreed that the
decision maker does not need to consider detailed evidence on matters such as
costs, values and benchmarks. I share that view. No other party provided
evidence on these matters. [38, 39, 54, 56, 200]
569. The assessment reflects a confirmed grant of £15 million, awarded under the
Housing Infrastructure Fund. I have no doubt that the viability of the scheme,
and its ability to deliver the promised housing, was subject to close scrutiny by
those responsible for awarding this very substantial grant. That is not
determinative of itself but it is a further factor adding weight to the evidence of
the viability witnesses who gave evidence at the Inquiry. [53, 201]
570. The assessment also assumes that exemption from CIL would be granted by the
Council. Applications for exemption cannot be considered in advance of the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 141
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
grant of planning permission. Whilst the outcome of that process cannot be
certain, the Council has put in place a policy on exceptional circumstances relief
from CIL. Given the Council’s support for the scheme there is a reasonable
prospect that the exemption would be granted. It is therefore reasonable to
take it into account. [201]
571. Whilst the profit level is at the bottom of the range typically seen in
assessments of this sort, the internal rate of return is supportive of the agreed
position on viability. Moreover, such assessments are done using current values,
making no allowance for enhanced values in later phases arising from successful
completion of earlier phases. In a large scale regeneration scheme such as this
it is likely that there would be some uplift as the scheme progresses. [54, 202]
572. The possibility that the scheme might stall was explored at the Inquiry. There
are some high abnormal development costs which would be incurred early on.
These would include the demolition of the multi-storey car park and the existing
commercial buildings, relocation of Surrey Chapel and decontamination. Front-
loading these major capital costs would create an incentive to complete the
scheme so that they could be recouped. Moreover, the terms of the Housing
Infrastructure Fund grant are such that it would have to be repaid if the housing
is not delivered. Given the amount of grant, that would be a considerable
incentive to ensure that the scheme is completed. The partnership between
Columbia Threadneedle Limited (the site owner) and Weston Homes (a house
builder) is also relevant. The site owner has a long term interest in the success
of the retail and commercial elements of the scheme which is dependent on the
whole scheme being delivered. The housebuilder is likely to benefit from
improved values in later phases. [55, 202]
573. I conclude that if planning permission is granted there is a reasonable prospect
that the scheme would be delivered as a whole. Viability considerations do not
weigh against the proposal.
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
Government’s policies for promoting sustainable transport
574. The site is well placed to offer a range of modes of transport. Most of the city
centre is readily accessible either on foot or by cycle. Magdalen Street is a key
bus route for services running northwards from the city. [206]
Pedestrians and cyclists
575. The design prioritises the needs of pedestrians and cyclists by creating new
north/south and east/west routes through the scheme. The section 106
Agreement secures the use of these routes by pedestrians and cyclists at all
times, subject only to any temporary closures for maintenance. These new
routes connect to the existing city cycle network. The Yellow Pedalway, which
runs from the city centre to the northern suburbs, currently passes through the
site and would be incorporated in the new St George Street. In addition, new
3m pedestrian/cycleways would be provided along the northern section of
Edward Street and along Pitt Street. The Pitt Street section would offer a choice
to cyclists on a north/south route, for example if they wanted to avoid the site
when it is busy with pedestrians. Early delivery of the Edward Street section
would be secured through suggested condition 27. [208]
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 142
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
576. The Blue Pedalway runs along Magdalen Street and would connect with the
east/west route through the site. Although CYC was initially concerned about
provision for cyclists, these concerns were addressed once the full details of the
section 106 Agreement became available. Cycle parking for residents would be
provided in secure ground floor areas inside the main entrances. Cycle parking
for visitors would be distributed throughout the public realm. [208, 320]
Car parking
577. In total the scheme would include around 1,500 parking spaces. NGP and others
argued that this level of provision would be excessive in such an accessible
location. Residential parking would be provided at a ratio of 0.75 spaces per
dwelling. DM Plan Policy 31 (together with appendix 3) states that housing in
the city centre primary retail area is required to be car free. However, elsewhere
in the city centre, such as at the application site, the parking ratio can between
zero and one. The residential element is therefore policy compliant. [207, 360]
578. The proposed public car park would have 600 spaces. There are currently 1,192
public parking spaces within the site, although with the multi-storey car park
being closed not all of this is usable. The proposal would have the effect of
increasing the number of useable spaces by 100. DM Plan Policy DM29 seeks to
manage parking demand across the city centre. It states that the total number
of off-street spaces will not exceed 10,000. Although the proposal would take
the total over this limit, the officers’ report notes that some temporary planning
consents for car parks in the city centre will have expired before the new multi-
storey car park would be operational. Consequently, the public parking would
accord with the DM Plan. [207]
579. The suggested conditions include measures relating to car parking:
• approval of a car park management plan, ensuring (amongst other
matters) that the tariff structure supports the function of the LDC
(condition 6);
• requiring the car park to be linked to the city wide variable messaging
system to advise drivers of the availability of spaces (condition 7);
• ensuring that use of the existing surface level public parking within the site
ceases (condition 8);
• monitoring the use of residential car parking to establish whether provision
can be reduced in later phases (condition 9); and
• holding back 25% of the residential spaces in Block A for use by occupiers
of later phases (condition 10).
Taken together, I consider that these conditions would ensure that the parking
operates in a way that supports the objectives of the DM Plan.
Network impacts
580. The officers’ report records that a transport assessment submitted with the
application set out the traffic impacts of the development, having been carried
out in accordance with the advice of the strategic highway authority. The local
highway authority agreed that the proposal would not have a severe impact on
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 143
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
the strategic highway network in Norwich. The County highway authority
commented that the traffic impact on the network would be minimal. Whilst
some representations referred to traffic congestion in the locality there was no
technical evidence before the Inquiry to contradict the findings of the transport
assessment and the conclusions of the highway authorities.
Promoting sustainable transport
581. The following further measures are proposed:
• the section 106 Agreement makes provision for a financial contribution to
car club vehicles and the layout incorporates designated car club bays;
• 5% of the parking spaces would be equipped for charging electric vehicles,
in accordance with a scheme to be approved under suggested condition
51;
• a new bus layby on Magdalen Street; and
• travel information plans for the residential and commercial elements, to be
approved under suggested conditions 49 and 50.
Conclusions on transport
582. The site is well placed to offer a range of modes of transport and the proposal
has taken the opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes. The
scheme would provide safe and suitable access for all users. There would be no
severe impacts on the highway network and no significant impacts on highway
safety. I conclude that the proposal would accord with the policies of the
Framework insofar as they seek to promote sustainable transport. Transport
considerations do not weigh against the proposal.
Other matters
Alternatives
583. The officers’ report sets out the alternatives to the application scheme that were
considered in the ES together with additional options arising from public
consultation332. The ‘do nothing’ option was assessed as offering no
environmental improvement. Moreover, there would be the prospect of further
deterioration in the condition and appearance of Anglia Square. It was noted
that the ‘do nothing’ option would generate an income but would require
ongoing capital investment in the repair of dated buildings and structures. The
other options considered included retaining and converting Sovereign House.
Whilst these options offered varying levels of environmental improvements,
none were assessed as being viable.
584. At the Inquiry discussion of alternatives focussed on a scheme prepared by Ash
Sakula on behalf of HE. This scheme was not put forward as a deliverable
planning application. It was said to demonstrate an alternative approach that
would produce heritage benefits whilst catering for development consistent with
an LDC. However, both HE and SBH accepted that the Ash Sakula scheme is not
332 Paragraphs 160 to 164 of CD2.15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 144
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
viable or deliverable in present economic conditions. Nor is that situation likely
to change in a realistic timescale. Consequently, whatever the design merits of
the Ash Sakula scheme, there is no evidence that it could actually deliver the
regeneration of the site that is promoted in the development plan. I therefore
attach limited weight to it. [58, 59, 287, 298]
585. Several representations referred to a recent housing development at Goldsmith
Street, suggesting that this scheme sets a standard that should be followed.
There was little detailed evidence about Goldsmith Street before the Inquiry.
However, I was able to visit it and, from what I saw, it is fully deserving of the
awards it has received. Nevertheless, it appears to be wholly or mainly
residential and is in a part of the city with different characteristics to those of
Anglia Square. In contrast, Anglia Square is a strategic site within the city
centre which is required by the development plan to deliver a range of land
uses. Whilst appreciating the design merits of Goldsmith Street, I do not think
that it provides a precedent or pattern in terms of the scale or form of
development appropriate at Anglia Square. [376]
Energy
586. JCS Policy 3 requires that 10% of the scheme’s energy requirements should be
met from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources. The officers’
report records that this requirement would be exceeded. The Energy Statement
submitted with the application proposed an energy saving of 23%, achieved by
using air source heat pumps for the commercial units333. NGP argued that the
JCS requirement is out of date and that the residential element would not meet
Policy 3. NGP was particularly critical of a proposal to install gas boilers in the
flats. [358, 359]
587. Policy 3 requires an assessment of the scheme as a whole, including both
commercial and residential elements. On that basis the scheme would meet
18% of the total requirement from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon
sources, thereby complying with the policy. An addendum to the energy
statement states that there is flexibility in the design, such that it would be
possible to use communal air source heat pumps for the flats rather than gas
boilers. Suggested condition 46 requires an Energy Strategy to be approved for
each phase of the development. This would ensure that the scheme remains
policy compliant and could take account of any regulatory changes, for example
to the Building Regulations, and technological advances that may take place
during the construction period.
Habitats Regulations
588. It will be necessary for the Secretary of State to undertake an appropriate
assessment under the Habitats Regulations in respect of designated sites. At the
Inquiry all parties agreed that there would be no likely significant effects on
relevant sites, subject to mitigation secured through the section 106
Agreement. Information to inform an appropriate assessment is at Annex F.
333 Paragraph 545 of CD2.15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 145
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Conclusion on other matters
589. None of the other matters considered in this section weigh against the proposal.
Environmental Statement
590. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) and
further environmental information was provided. The Council is satisfied that the
ES meets the requirements of the relevant regulations and I see no reason to
disagree. I have had regard to the environmental information in my
assessments and recommendation. The suggested conditions would ensure that
the outline elements of the scheme would be within the parameters assessed in
the ES. [10, 11]
Public Sector Equality Duty
591. There was no formal equalities impact assessment before the Inquiry. However,
equalities and diversity issues were addressed in the officers’ report334. The
report did not identify any negative impacts that would have a disproportionate
effect on groups sharing protected characteristics.
592. The following features of the scheme would advance equality of opportunity for
those sharing relevant protected characteristics:
• an accessible public realm prioritising the needs of pedestrians;
• 10% of dwellings to meet requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations
for accessible and adaptable dwellings (condition 43);
• Changing Places facility (condition 12); and
• shop mobility scheme (condition 65).
I am satisfied that the proposals take account of equalities issues and that there
is adequate information before the Secretary of State for him to have due
regard to equalities in his decision.
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the
development plan for the area
593. The development plan comprises the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich
and South Norfolk (March 2011) (JCS) together with amendments that were
adopted in January 2014; the Norwich Development Management Policies Local
Plan (December 2014) (DM Plan) and the Norwich Development Site Allocations
Local Plan (December 2014). No party identified any relevant policies in the Site
Allocations Local Plan. The Council and the applicant agreed that very limited
weight could be attached to the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan at this
stage of its preparation and I share that view. The most important policies for
determining this application are therefore to be found in the JCS and the DM
Plan.
334 Paragraph 563 of CD2.15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 146
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
The Joint Core Strategy
594. Policy 1 seeks to address climate change and protect environmental assets.
I have concluded that the proposal would accord with the JCS in relation to
energy. It would make efficient use of land, delivering a high density of
development in a designated centre on a public transport route. It would
minimise the need to travel, give priority to low impact modes of transport and
have no impact on designated nature conservation sites. The proposal would
accord with the policy in all these respects.
595. Policy 1 also requires heritage assets and the wider historic environment to be
conserved and enhanced. In that regard I have found that there would be a net
benefit to the NCCCA. However, there would be harm to the significance of a
number of listed buildings through development in their settings. I have
characterised the degree of harm as moderate in two instances and in all other
cases I have characterised the degree of harm as minor. Overall, I consider that
the ways in which the proposal would accord with the policy outweigh the
degree of conflict that would arise. On balance I find that the proposal would
accord with Policy 1.
596. Policy 2 promotes good design and seeks to ensure that development respects
local distinctiveness. I have concluded that the proposed design is a considered
response to the surrounding urban fabric. It would create a distinctive new
identity and a strong sense of place, rather than seeking to replicate that which
surrounds it. The design would also create a high quality public realm,
encouraging walking and cycling. On the other hand I have found that the
height and mass of the proposal would be uncharacteristic. Having assessed the
ways in which the design would help to integrate the development into its
surroundings, I conclude that this factor is not sufficient to outweigh the
positive aspects I have identified. On balance I find that the proposal would
accord with Policy 2.
597. Policy 3 requires that at least 10% of the energy requirement for the scheme
would be derived from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources. This
requirement would be met.
598. Policy 4 deals with housing delivery. The proposal would make a significant
contribution to housing delivery. The mix of housing types is justified by the
particular circumstances of the site and the amount of affordable housing would
be the most that could be achieved in current market conditions. There is a
section 106 Agreement in place which contains appropriate provisions relating
to the phasing of affordable housing and review mechanisms which could enable
more affordable housing to be provided in the event that viability improves.
I conclude that the proposal would accord with Policy 4.
599. Policy 5 seeks to develop the local economy in a sustainable way. Anglia Square
is not currently fulfilling its potential to contribute to the local economy. The
proposal would result in some existing employment being displaced but overall
there would be a significant net gain in employment. The proposal includes
measures to support small and medium enterprises. It would provide flexibility
in relation to permitted uses, which would help Anglia Square to respond to
changes in economic circumstances. The proposal would overcome constraints
to developing a key site. In my view it would accord with Policy 5.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 147
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
600. Policy 7 seeks to maintain or enhance the quality of life and the well-being of
communities. The proposal would provide 120 affordable dwellings, which would
be a valuable contribution to meeting housing needs in a part of the city with
high levels of deprivation. It would promote healthier lifestyles by prioritising
walking and cycling. Communal open space, a high quality public realm and new
leisure facilities would provide opportunities for social interaction. Provision
would be made for accessible and adaptable dwellings, a Changing Places
facility and a shop mobility scheme. I consider that the proposal would accord
with Policy 7.
601. Policy 11 seeks to enhance the regional role of Norwich city centre. This includes
promoting the comprehensive regeneration of the northern city centre at Anglia
Square. Whilst the policy refers to an Area Action Plan which is no longer
extant, the objective of securing comprehensive regeneration is still an
important policy objective. The proposal would enhance the retail function of the
LDC, expand the use of the centre (including the evening economy), extend
leisure and hospitality uses, expand the employment function of the site and
provide housing. Whilst the amount of family housing would be limited, the
housing mix is justified by the particular circumstances of the site. Policy 11
also requires the distinctive character of the historic city to be enhanced. As
noted above, I have found that there would be a net benefit to the NCCCA but
there would be harm to the significance of a number of listed buildings through
development in their settings. Nevertheless, the main thrust of Policy 11 is to
secure comprehensive regeneration. Overall, I consider that the proposal would
accord with Policy 11.
602. Policy 19 encourages new retailing, services, employment and other town centre
uses at LDCs such as Anglia Square/Magdalen Street, subject to the scale of
development being appropriate to the form and functions of the retail hierarchy.
I have found that the proposal would support the role that Anglia Square/
Magdalen Street plays in the hierarchy of centres, promoting the long term
vitality and viability of the LDC. It would therefore accord with Policy 19.
Development Management Plan
603. Policy DM1 seeks to achieve sustainable development. The proposal would
support sustainable economic growth in the Norwich economy. The section 106
Agreement would make provision for an employment and skills strategy. The
scheme would contribute to minimising the need to travel and reducing
dependency on the private car. It would make provision for car club vehicles
and electric vehicle charging points. It would provide for safety and security and
increased opportunities for social interaction through an attractive and well-
designed public realm and through the provision of communal open space. The
proposal would accord with the policy in all these respects.
604. Policy DM1 also requires the protection and enhancement of heritage assets. In
that regard I have found that there would be a net benefit to the NCCCA.
However, there would be harm to the significance of a number of listed
buildings through development in their settings. Overall, I consider that the
ways in which the proposal would accord with the policy outweigh the degree of
conflict that would arise. On balance I find that the proposal would accord with
Policy DM1.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 148
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
605. Policy DM2 seeks to ensure satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers
and for neighbouring occupiers. I have concluded that the proposed flats would
provide a good standard of residential accommodation and would create
satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. Any potential impacts on
neighbouring occupiers could be appropriately manged through conditions. The
proposal would accord with Policy DM2.
606. Policy DM3 sets out design principles. The proposal would protect the long views
of strategic landmarks identified in Appendix 8 and the NCCCA. With regard to
local distinctiveness, I have concluded that the proposed design is a considered
response to the surrounding urban fabric that would create a distinctive new
identity and a strong sense of place. The proposed layout would make efficient
use of land and would provide a permeable and legible network of routes and
spaces, linking effectively with existing routes. The public realm would be
attractive, overlooked and secure. The layout includes space for cycle and
refuse storage. Whilst the density of development would be high, the policy
allows for higher densities in the city centre and district centres. The DAS has
set out an appropriate approach to materials, which would be subject to later
approval under conditions or reserved matters. Tree planting, green walls and
green roofs would contribute to biodiversity. Energy efficiency measures would
be incorporated. The proposal would accord with the policy in all these ways.
607. On the other hand, the policy also refers to height, mass, scale and form and
calls for exceptional design quality at gateway locations. Block F would be at
one of these gateway locations. I have concluded that the scale and mass of
Block F would appear strikingly different and unfamiliar, to an extent that would
cause harm. In assessing the importance of that point, it is relevant that the
immediate context includes the Pitt Street/St Crispins Road roundabout and
modern office buildings at St Crispins House. Planning permissions have been
granted for the conversion and increase in height of St Crispins House and for
redevelopment at St Mary’s Works, to the south west of the roundabout.
Overall, I conclude that this factor is not sufficient to outweigh the positive
aspects of the design that I have identified. On balance I find that the proposal
would accord with Policy DM3.
608. Policy DM8 relates to open space. The proposal would provide multi-functional
public spaces of an appropriate form and character to support social interaction
and make provision for children’s play. It would accord with Policy DM8.
609. Policy DM9 relates to the historic environment and heritage assets. No
designated heritage assets would be physically affected. There would be a net
gain to the character and appearance of the NCCCA. Whilst there would be a
loss of locally listed buildings at Pitt Street, that loss would be outweighed by
the benefits of the scheme. Any unknown archaeological assets would be
appropriately protected by the approval of a written scheme of archaeological
investigation. The proposal would accord with the policy in all these ways. On
the other hand, the policy requires that development should maximise
opportunities to preserve the significance of designated heritage assets. I have
found that there would be harm to the significance of a number of listed
buildings through development in their settings. Having regard to the effect on
those listed buildings, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would conflict
with policy DM9.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 149
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
610. Policy DM11 relates to environmental hazards, including air quality. I have
found that the proposal would be appropriate for its location taking account of
likely effects on health and living conditions. No conflicts with the Council’s Air
Quality Action Plan have been identified. Opportunities to mitigate impacts have
been identified and the proposal would contribute towards compliance with
relevant national objectives. Potential hazards relating to contamination, water
quality and noise could be appropriately managed through conditions. The
proposal would accord with Policy DM11.
611. Policy DM12 sets out principles for residential development. The proposal would
not compromise regeneration proposals and it would achieve a diverse mix of
uses. Potential impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area could be
managed by conditions. The mix of housing types is justified by the particular
circumstances of the site and the amount of affordable housing would be the
most that could be achieved in current market conditions. Whilst the density of
development would be high, the policy allows for higher densities in the city
centre and district centres. At least 10% of dwellings would meet the
requirements for accessible and adaptable dwellings. I consider that the
proposal would accord with Policy DM12.
612. Policy DM13 relates specifically to the construction of flats (amongst other types
of accommodation). The proposal would achieve a good standard of amenity
and living conditions for future occupiers without causing any unacceptable
impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Satisfactory
provision would be made for servicing, parking and amenity space. The proposal
would accord with Policy DM13.
613. Policy DM16 relates to employment and business development. The proposal
would result in a significant net gain in employment. I have found that the
application scheme would help to create the conditions in which businesses can
invest, expand and adapt. It would provide flexibility in relation to permitted
uses, which would help Anglia Square to respond to changes in economic
circumstances. The proposal would accord with Policy DM16.
614. Policy DM17 seeks to protect small and medium scale business premises. The
proposal would result in some existing employment being displaced. However,
there would be a significant net gain in employment. This is a case where
retaining existing businesses where they are would compromise the
regeneration of the wider area in accordance with the development plan. The
proposal includes measures to facilitate relocation of some existing businesses
and to support small and medium enterprises generally. There would be
overriding community benefits from the new uses which could not be achieved
by locating those uses elsewhere. Overall, the proposal would accord with Policy
DM17.
615. Policy DM18 supports development for retail, leisure and other main town centre
uses within LDCs, where their scale is appropriate to the centre’s position in the
hierarchy. I have found that the proposal would support the role that Anglia
Square/Magdalen Street plays in the hierarchy of centres, promoting the long
term vitality and viability of the LDC. It would therefore accord with Policy
DM18.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 150
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
616. Policy DM19 allows for development of Class B1 office space at an LDC provided
the scale is appropriate to the centre’s position in the hierarchy. There is
currently a great deal of vacant office floorspace at Anglia Square. The scheme
includes scope for considerably less office floorspace. However, the scale and
location of the new units would be appropriate to small and medium enterprises,
consistent with the new role of Anglia Square. The proposal would accord with
Policy DM19.
617. Policy DM20 seeks to manage changes of use in LDCs and other retail locations.
In this case the proposal would create wholly new retail frontages so the policy
is not directly relevant. However, planning conditions are proposed to ensure
that future uses accord with the retail strategy for Anglia Square. This would be
consistent with the objectives of the policy which seeks to maintain vitality and
viability.
618. Policy DM28 seeks to encourage sustainable travel. The proposal includes cycle
and pedestrian links as an integral part of the design. The layout would be
coherent and legible, creating permeability and accessibility for pedestrians. Off-
site cycle and pedestrian links would be enhanced and there would be easy
access to bus stops. Vehicle parking would not dominate the public realm but
would be safe and convenient to occupiers. Travel planning would be
incorporated and provision would be made for car club vehicles and parking.
The proposal would accord with Policy DM28.
619. Policy DM29 relates to public off-street parking in the city centre. The proposed
public parking would be consistent with the overall limit of 10,000 spaces set by
the policy. It would consolidate existing parking, make efficient use of land by
being included in the built form of wider development, have a tariff structure to
support the LDC and be linked to the city wide variable messaging system. The
new car park would be secure and easily accessible by vehicles and on foot.
Provision would be made for electric vehicle charging. The proposal would
accord with Policy DM29.
620. Policy DM31 applies the upper and lower limits for parking provision which are
set out in appendix 3. For residential units at the application site the upper limit
is one space per dwelling. The proposed ratio of 0.75 spaces per unit is within
that limit. Provision would be made for disabled drivers, cycle parking, electric
vehicle charging, refuse storage and collection and car club vehicles. The
proposal would accord with Policy DM31.
621. Policy DM32 would allow car free housing at the application site but this is not a
policy requirement. The proposed residential parking does not therefore conflict
with this policy.
622. Policy DM33 sets out principles for planning obligations. The justification for the
obligations contained in the section 106 Agreement has been set out in the
Council’s CIL compliance statement. I conclude that the proposal would accord
with this policy.
Conclusions on the development plan
623. I have identified those policies of the JCS and the DM Plan that I consider to be
most important to the determination of this appeal. Having assessed the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 151
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
proposal against those policies I find it would accord with all but one. Although
the proposal would result in a net benefit to the NCCCA, on balance it would
conflict with DM Plan DM9 because of harm to a number of designated heritage
assets through development in their settings.
624. On the other hand the proposal would deliver the comprehensive regeneration
of Anglia Square, which is an important strategic objective. It would also make
a significant contribution to other development plan objectives including
promoting large district centres, delivering housing and supporting economic
development. It would comply with a range of other relevant policies which are
set out above. My overall assessment is that the proposal would accord with the
development plan as a whole.
Overall conclusion and planning balance
625. Having found that the proposal would accord with the development plan as a
whole, it is necessary to consider whether there are other considerations that
indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.
626. The proposal would cause harm to a number of listed buildings through
development in their settings. In all cases this would be less than substantial
harm in the terms of the Framework. Nevertheless, in each case that is a matter
of considerable importance and weight. It should be noted that there would be
harm that I would characterise as moderate to the Grade I listed Church of St
Augustine and the Grade II listed Nos 2 – 12 Gildencroft. In respect of the other
assets, there would be harm that I would characterise as minor. Even so, a
number of highly graded assets would be affected, including the Cathedral, the
Church of St Simon and St Jude, the Church of St Clement, the Church of St
George, St Helen’s Church and St Andrew’s Church (All Grade I) and Bacon’s
House and Nos 11 to 13 Fye Bridge Street (Grade II*).
627. Having carried out the balancing exercise required by paragraph 196 of the
Framework I have found that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh
the harm. I have not identified any other considerations which indicate an
outcome other than in accordance with the development plan. I shall therefore
recommend that planning permission is granted.
RECOMMENDATION
628. I recommend that the application be approved and planning permission be
granted for the development described in Annex D subject to the conditions set
out in Annex G.
David Prentis
Inspector
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 152
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
ANNEX A - APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Timothy Corner Queen’s Counsel, instructed by Trowers and
Hamlins
He called
Ben Webster Design, Conservation and Landscape Manager,
MA MPhil MRTPI Norwich City Council
Tony Williams Head of Viability (Technical), the Valuation Office
BSc MRICS Agency
Bruce Bentley Principal Planner (Transportation), Norwich City
BSc BTP Council
David Parkin Area Development Manager, Norwich City Council
PGDip MRTPI
Andrew Turnball Interim Housing Development Manager, Norwich
City Council
Ellen Tilney Economic Development Manager, Norwich City
Council
Lesley Oldfield Public Protection Officer, Norwich City Council
BSc Dip Acoustics
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Russell Harris Queen’s Counsel, instructed by Peter Luder of
Weston Homes/Columbia Threadneedle
He called
Dr Chris Miele Montagu Evans LLP
MRTPI IHBC
Peter Vaughan Broadway Malyan
BA DipArch RIBA ARB
Francis Truss Carter Jonas
BA MSc MRICS
Martin Paddle WSP
BSc CEng CWEM MICE
FCIHT MCIWEM
Peter Luder Weston Homes plc
BA MUP MRTPI
Chris Watts Cushman and Wakefield
MTCP MRTPI
Melanie Hobson Aether Ltd
MSc BSc
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 153
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
FOR HISTORIC ENGLAND:
Guy Williams Of Counsel, instructed by Andrew Wiseman
He called
John Neale Head of Development Advice, Historic England
MA IHBC
FOR SAVE BRITAIN’S HERITAGE:
Matthew Dale-Harris Of Counsel, instructed by Henrietta Billings
He called
Alec Forshaw Heritage consultant
MRTPI IHBC
FOR THE NORWICH SOCIETY:
Paul Burall
He called
Jon Boon RIBA Chartered Architect
Dr Peter Doll Canon Librarian, Norwich Cathedral
Simeon Jackson MSc Architectural designer
FOR THE NORWICH CYCLING CAMPAIGN:
Anthony Clarke
He called
Dr Andrew Boswell Climate Emergency Planning and Policy
Dr Ashley Mills Systems engineer
BSc MSc PhD
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Cllr Denise Carlo Norwich City Councillor
Hugo Malik On behalf of a group of current and former City
and County Councillors
Dr Andrew Boswell On behalf of Norwich Green Party (in respect of
housing) and in a personal capacity in respect of
energy
Ellen Goodwin New Anglia Local Economic Partnership
John Howkins Local resident
Paul Scruton Norwich Over the Water
Jane Moir Norwich Over the Water
Stacey Wilson Norwich Over the Water
High McGlyn Cathedral, Magdalen and St Augustine’s Forum
Dr Judith Ford Local resident
Dr Alison Dow Local GP
Ian Gibson Local resident and former MP
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 154
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Joanna Smith On behalf of Clive Lewis MP and, separately, in a
personal capacity as a local resident
Peter Woodrow Norfolk Gardens Trust
Jan McLachlan Local resident
Cllr Martin Schmierer Norwich City Councillor
Ian Couzens Local business owner and former leader of
Norwich City Council
Mark Oxley Norwich Conservative Association
Michael Innes Architect
Gerard Stamp Artist
Cllr Danny Douglas Norfolk County Councillor
Anna Brass Artist and occupier of Gildengate House
Paul Fenner Artist and occupier of Gildengate House
Phillipa Clements Local resident and business owner
Jeff Jordan Local resident
Helen Leith Local resident
Cllr Jamie Osborn Norwich City Councillor
Matthew Williams Local resident, geologist and historian
Neil Cooke Local resident
Kate Murphy Artist and occupier of Gildengate House
Charlotte Helliwell Local resident
Victoria Penn On behalf of a local resident and Car Free
Norwich
Philip MacDonald Surrey Chapel
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 155
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
ANNEX B – ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE REPORT
AQMA Air Quality Management Area
AQA Air quality assessment
AQASR Air quality annual status report
BfL Building for Life
Castle Norwich Castle
Cathedral Cathedral of the Holy and Undivided Trinity
CMSA Community, Magdalen and St Augustine’s Forum
CIL Community Infrastructure Levy
CURED v3A Calculator using realistic emissions for diesels, version 3A
CYC Norwich Cycling Campaign
DAS Design and access statement
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DM Plan Norwich Development Management Policies Local Plan
DT Diffusion Tube
EFT Emissions Factor Toolkit
ES Environmental Statement
Framework National Planning Policy Framework
GPA3 Good practice advice note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets
HE Historic England
HIF Housing Infrastructure Fund
JCS Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk
LBA1990 Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990
LBgI, LBgII*, Listed Building, Grade I, II* or II respectively
LBgII
LDC Large district centre
NCCCA Norwich City Centre Conservation Area
NGP Norwich Green Party
NO Nitrogen dioxide
2
NPA Norwich policy area
NS Norwich Society
PGN Planning guidance note
PM Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 µm
10
RC Cathedral Cathedral of St John the Baptist
SA Plan Norwich Development Site Allocations Local Plan
SBH Save Britain’s Heritage
SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment
SME Small and medium enterprises
SoCG Statement of Common Ground
TVIA Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 156
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
ANNEX C – DOCUMENTS
Documents received during the Inquiry
Ref Description
Submitted by the applicant
WH10 Appearances
WH11 Supplementary CGIs (Mr Vaughan)
WH12 Opening submissions
WH13 Draft S106 Agreement
WH14 TVIA viewpoints shown on CAA plans
WH15 Proposals for St Crispins House
WH16 Norwich Visitor Map
WH17 Slides from Mr Vaughan’s presentation
WH18 Plans showing affordable housing
WH19 Plan showing discounted commercial units
WH20 Note on updated air quality data (Ms Hobson)
WH21 Enlarged print of view 8 panorama
WH22 UK air quality limit values
WH23 Emissions Factor Toolkit v9 User Guide
WH24 Air quality – summary maps and tables (Ms Hobson)
WH25 Consent to pre-commencement conditions
WH26 Application in relation to Anglo Scandinavian street pattern
WH27 Animations (data stick) (Dr Miele)
WH28 Closing submissions
Submitted by the Council
NCC10 Opening submissions
NCC11 Leeds Core Strategy (extract)
NCC12 Selected images (Mr Webster)
NCC13 Draft SoCG on air quality (2019 monitoring data attached)
NCC14 Slides from Mr Bentley’s presentation
NCC15 Norwich Annual Monitoring Report
NCC16 Note on updated 5 year housing land supply
NCC17 Norwich shopping floorspace monitor
NCC18 Statement on Housing Infrastructure Fund
NCC19 Schedule of suggested planning conditions (version 2)
NCC20 CIL Compliance Statement
NCC21 Note of Mr Parkin’s evidence in chief
NCC22 Location plan for Malzy Court
NCC23 Closing submissions
Submitted by Historic England
HE10 Opening submissions
HE11 Closing submissions
Submitted by Save Britain’s Heritage
SBH10 Opening submissions
SBH11 Suggestions for site visit
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 157
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
SBH12 Closing submissions
Submitted by the Norwich Society
NS10 Opening submissions
NS11 Location plan for Cook’s Hospital (now known as Malzy Court)
NS12 Closing submissions
Submitted by Norwich Cycling Campaign
CYC10 Opening submissions
CYC11 Note on bias adjustment factors (Dr Boswell)
CYC12 Garbage in, gospel out? – Air Quality Assessment in the UK
planning system (Dr Mills)
CYC13 Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and
Construction
CYC14 Closing submissions
Submitted by Norwich Green Party
NGP10 Cllr Carlo - presentation (6 February 2020)
Submitted by other parties
OD1 Brian Faulkner 28 January 2020
OD2 Sir Marcus Setchell 29 January 2020
OD3 Wendy Pritchard 28 January 2020
OD4 Desmond Higgins 28 January 2020
OD5 Roger Carter 28 January 2020
OD6 Roger Bradbury 28 January 2020
OD7 Seb Frichot 28 January 2020
OD8 Todd Longstaffe-Gowan 28 January 2020
OD9 John Duffield 28 January 2020
OD10 Nigel Hargreaves 27 January 2020 (with letter)
OD11 Bob Baker 27 January 2020
OD12 Christopher Horwood 27 January 2020
OD13 Keith and Nicole Roberts 27 January 2020
OD14 Jacqueline Middleton 30 January 2020
OD15 Margaret Goodyear 30 January 2020
OD16 Sir Nicholas Bacon 28 January 2020
OD17 Shirley Bailey 30 January 2020
OD18 Gerard Stamp 24 January 2020
OD19 Hugh and Mirabel Cecil 21 January 2020
OD20 Dr Judith Ford’s presentation (6 February 2020)
OD21 Dr Alison Dow’s presentation (6 February 2020)
OD22 Norfolk Gardens Trust’s presentation (6 February 2020)
OD23 Hugo Malik’s presentation (6 February 2020)
OD24 Graham Martin 10 February 2020
OD25 George Mahood 11 February 2020
OD26 Jennifer Aldous 11 February 2020
OD27 Mark Oxley 26 February 2020
OD28 Michael Innes 26 February 2020
OD29 Phillipa Clements 26 February 2020
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 158
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
OD30 Jeff Jordan 26 February 2020
OD31 Matthew Williams 26 February 2020
OD32 Kate Murphy 26 February 2020
OD33 Julia Colley 26 February 2020
OD34 Helen Leith 26 February 2020
OD35 Cllr Danny Douglas 26 February 2020
OD36 Ian Couzens 26 February 2020
Inquiry documents
ID10 Viability position statement
ID11 Statement of Common Ground on Air Quality
ID12 Schedule of suggested planning conditions (version 3)
ID13 Schedule of suggested planning conditions (version 4)
ID14 Description of development (agreed by Council and applicants)
ID15 Schedule of plans
ID16 Final draft S106 Agreement
ID17 Note on bias adjustment factors (Ms Hobson and Ms Oldfield)
Post-Inquiry Documents
PID1 Section 106 Agreement dated 12 March 2020
Proofs of evidence
The Applicant
Peter Vaughan - Proof WH1/1
Architecture Appendices WH1/3
Rebuttal WH1/4
Dr Chris Miele – Proof WH2/1
Historic environment Summary WH2/2
Appendices WH2/3
Rebuttal WH2/4
Francis Truss – Proof WH3/1
Viability Summary WH3/2
Appendices WH3/3
Rebuttal WH3/4
Peter Luder – Proof WH4/1
Planning policy and Appendices WH4/3
planning balance Rebuttal WH4/4
Chris Watts – Proof WH5/1
Town centres and retail Summary WH5/2
Appendices WH5/3
Chris Watts Proof WH6/1
Local economy Appendices WH6/3
Martin Paddle – Proof WH7/1
Transport Summary WH7/2
Appendices WH7/3
Rebuttal WH7/4
Melanie Hobson – Proof WH8/1
Air quality Appendices WH8/3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 159
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Rebuttal WH8/4
Norwich City Council
David Parkin – Proof NCC1/1
Planning policy and Summary NCC1/2
planning balance Appendices NCC1/3
Rebuttal NCC1/4
Ben Webster – Proof NCC2/1
Historic environment Summary NCC2/2
Rebuttal NCC2/4
Bruce Bentley - Proof NCC3/1
Transport Summary NCC3/2
Appendices MCC3/3
Ellen Tilney – Proof NCC4/1
Economic development Summary NCC4/2
Tony Williams – Proof NCC5/1
Viability Appendices NCC5/3
Rebuttal NCC5/4
Lesley Oldfield – Proof NCC6/1
Air quality Rebuttal NCC6/4
Historic England
John Neale Proof HE1/1
Appendices HE1/2 to HE1/7
Jonathan Rhodes Proof HE2/1
Appendices HE2/2 to HE2/5
Rebuttal HE2/6
Save Britain’s Heritage
Alec Forshaw Proof SBH1/1
Summary SBH1/2
Appendix SBH1/3
Norwich Society
Jon Boon – Proof NS1/1
Historic environment Appendices NS1/2 and NS1/3
Paul Burall – Proof NS2/1
Economy and town
centres
Simeon Jackson – Proof NS3/1
Planning policy and
planning balance
Dr Peter Doll – Proof NS4/1
Economy and town
centres
Norwich Cycling Campaign
Dr Andrew Boswell – Proof CYC1/1
Air quality Appendices CYC1/3
Rebuttal CYC1/4
Anthony Clarke – Proof CYC2/1
Cycle and pedestrian
routes
Anthony Clarke – Proof CYC2/2
Sovereign House
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 160
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Anthony Clarke – Proof CYC2/3
Edward Street car park
Prof Stephen Peckham Proof CYC3/1
and Dr Ashley Mills – Air Rebuttal CYC3/4
quality
Written Statements
Dr Andrew Boswell – NGP1
Housing – for Norwich
Green Party
Norwich Over the Water NOTW1
Society
Hugo Malik – HM1
Housing
Statements of Common Ground
Overarching SoCG SoCG1
Heritage assets SoCG2
Viability SoCG3
Core Documents
Reference Title
CD1.1 National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)
CD1.2 National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
Planning Practice Guidance on viability (updated May
A. GOVERNMENT CD1.3 2019)
GUIDANCE AND DCLG - Technical housing standards – nationally
RELEVANT CD1.4 described space standard
LEGISLATION Building Regulations 2010 - Access to and Use of
CD1.5 Buildings
CD1.6 The DCLG Appraisal Guide
CD1.7 Introduction to Housing Infrastructure Fund
City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan (adopted
CD2.1 Nov 2004)
Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South
Norfolk, (’JCS’) (adopted March 2011 with
CD2.2 amendments adopted January 2014)
Norwich Development Management Policies Local
B. DEVELOPMENT CD2.3 Plan, (‘DM Plan’) (adopted December 2014)
PLAN, EMERGING PLAN
Norwich Development Site Allocations Local Plan,
AND EVIDENCE BASE CD2.4 (‘SA Plan’), (adopted December 2014)
DOCUMENTS
Greater Norwich Local Plan (‘GNLP’), Regulation 18
CD2.5 Draft Plan Consultation
GNLP Call for Sites (May-July 2016) (NORWICH
CD2.6 EXTRACT ONLY)
GNLP Regulation 18 Growth Options and Site
Proposals Consultation (January-March 2018)
CD2.7 (EXTRACT)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 161
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
GNLP Regulation 18 Consultation on New, Revised
and Small Sites (October-December 2018)
CD2.8 (NORWICH EXTRACT ONLY)
Greater Norwich Employment, Town Centre and
CD2.9 Retail Study (December 2017)
Greater Norwich Town Centres & Retail Study:
Volume 1 Main Report (October 2017) (prepared by
CD2.9(a) GVA)
Greater Norwich Town Centres & Retail Study:
Volume 2 Study Area & Market Share Plans (October
CD2.9(b) 2017) (prepared by GVA)
Greater Norwich Town Centres & Retail Study:
Volume 3 Quantitative Need Tables (October 2017)
CD2.9(c) (prepared by GVA)
Greater Norwich Town Centres & Retail Study:
Volume 4 Household Survey Results (October 2017)
CD2.9(d) (prepared by GVA)
Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal
CD2.10 (2007)
Anglia Square Policy Guidance Note (‘PGN’)
CD2.11 (adopted 2017)
Northern City Centre Area Action Plan 2010
CD2.12 (‘NCCAAP’) (now expired)
CD2.13 Local Development Scheme (revised October 2018)
CD2.14 Annual Monitoring Report 2017 - 2018
Planning Applications Committee Report and Minutes
CD2.15 6 December 2018 (Application Ref 18/00330/F)
Community Infrastructure Levy Guidance Note 7:
CD2.16 Exceptional Circumstances Relief Policy (July 2019)
CD2.17 Car Parking Standards
CD2.18 Cycle Parking Standards
CD2.19 Norfolk County Council Local Transport Plan
Travel Plan Guidance, Norfolk County Council, May
CD2.20 2019
Central Norfolk Strategic Housing Market Assessment
CD2.21 (ORS June 2017)
CD2.22 PROMIS Retail Report for Norwich (14 October 2019)
High streets and town centres 2030: Eleventh Report
CD2.23 of Session 2017-19 (February 2019)
HCA Employment Density Guide: 3rd edition
CD2.24 (November 2015)
Norwich City Centre Shopping Floorspace Monitor &
CD2.25 Local & District Centres Monitor (June 2018)
Affordable housing SPD (adopted March 2015)
CD3.1 (superseded)
CD3.2 Affordable housing SPD (adopted July 2019)
Open space and play space SPD (adopted October
C. SUPPLEMENTARY CD3.3 2015)
PLANNING GUIDANCE CD3.4 Landscape and trees (adopted June 2016)
Heritage Interpretation SPD (adopted December
CD3.5 2015)
Main town centre uses and retail frontages SPD
CD3.6 (adopted December 2014)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 162
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD4.1 Application Form
CD4.2 CIL Form
CD4.3 Affordable Housing Statement
CD4.4 Planning Obligations Statement Rev A
CD4.5 Planning Statement
CD4.6 Town Centre Uses Statement
CD4.7 Retail Strategy Report
Illustrative Ground Level Plan for Retail
CD4.8 Strategy_31467-A03-P2-054
CD4.9 Statement of Community Involvement
CD4.10 Design and Access Statement
CD4.11 31467-1401-Drawing Register
180205_01 Illustrative Masterplan Ground Floor_
CD4.12 A01-P2-001
CD4.13 Access - 31467-A01-PP-300
CD4.14 Development Parcel - 31467-A01-PP-400
CD4.15 Land Use Ground Floor - 31467-A01-PP-200
CD4.16 Land Use First Floor - 31467-A01-PP-201
CD4.17 Land Use Third Floor - 31467-A01-PP-202
CD4.18 Land Use Fourth Floor - 31467-A01-PP-203
CD4.19 Land Use Level Seven - 31467-A01-PP-204
CD4.20 Land Use Ninth Floor 31467-A01-PP-205
D. PLANNING CD4.21 Land Use Twelfth Floor - 31467-A01-PP-206
APPLICATION
CD4.22 Land Use Fifteenth Floor - 31467-A01-PP-207
DOCUMENTS (REF:
CD4.23 Proposed Building Heights - 31467-A01-PP-100
18/00330/F) (MARCH
CD4.24 Public Realm - 31467-A01-PP-500
2018)
CD4.25 Detailed Application Boundary - 31467-A02-P2-101
CD4.26 Existing Buildings - 31467-A02-P2-200
Existing Buildings Demolition Plan - 31467-A02-P2-
CD4.27 201
CD4.28 Hybrid Application Boundary - 31467-A02-P2-100
CD4.29 Illustrative Phasing Strategy - 31467-A02-P2-400
CD4.30 Block A Ground Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-000
CD4.31 Block A 1st Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-001
CD4.32 Block A 2nd Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-002
CD4.33 Block A 3rd Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-003
CD4.34 Block A 4th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-004
CD4.35 Block A 5th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-005
CD4.36 Block A 6th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-006
CD4.37 Block A 6th Floor Parking 31467-A03-P2-A-006A
CD4.38 Block A 7th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-007
CD4.39 Block A 8th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-008
CD4.40 Block A 9th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-009
CD4.41 Block A 10th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-010
CD4.42 Block A Roof Level 31467-A03-P2-A-011
CD4.43 Block E Tower 31467-A03-P2-E-000
CD4.44 31467-A03-P2-000 Ground Floor M Plan
CD4.45 31467-A03-P2-0B1 Basement Floor
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 163
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD4.46 31467-A03-P2-001 First Floor
CD4.47 31467-A03-P2-002 Second Floor
CD4.48 31467-A03-P2-003 Third Floor
CD4.49 31467-A03-P2-004 Fourth Floor
CD4.50 31467-A03-P2-005 Fifth Floor
CD4.51 31467-A03-P2-006 Sixth Floor
CD4.52 31467-A03-P2-007 Seventh Floor
CD4.53 31467-A03-P2-008 Eighth Floor
CD4.54 31467-A03-P2-009 Ninth Floor
CD4.55 31467-A03-P2-010 Tenth Floor
CD4.56 31467-A03-P2-011 Eleventh Floor
CD4.57 31467-A03-P2-012_020 12-20th Floor
CD4.58 31467-A03-P2-021_022 21-22nd Floor
CD4.59 31467-A03-P2-023_024 23-24th Floor
CD4.60 31467-A03-P2-050 Storey Height Res Only
CD4.61 Block A Section 1-3_31467-A04-P2-A-001
CD4.62 Block A Section 4, 5 & 6_31467-A05-P2-A-002
CD4.63 Block A Elevations 1-3_31467-A05-P2-A-001
CD4.64 Tower 31467-A05-P2-E-001 Elevation 1 & Section 1
CD4.65 Tower 31467-A05-P2-E-002 Elevation 2 & Section 2
CD4.66 Tower 31467-A05-P2-E-003 Elevations 3 & 4
CD4.67 Illustrative Sections 1-3 31467-A04-P2-001
CD4.68 Illustrative Sections 4-6 31467-A04-P2-002
CD4.69 Phase 2 Elevation 1&2_31467-A05-P2-001
CD4.70 Phase 2 Elevation 3&4_31467-A05-P2-002
CD4.71 Phase 2 Elevation 5&6_31467-A05-P2-003
CD4.72 Phase 2 Elevation 7&8_31467-A05-P2-004
CD4.73 Illustrative Street Elevations_31467-A05-P2-A-100
CD4.74 Commercial Area Schedule_31467-1800-1807-002
CD4.75 Cycle Provision Schedule_31467-1800-1807-005
CD4.76 GIA All proposed buildings_31467-1807-1809
CD4.77 GIA Area Schedule_31467-1807-013
Proposed Car Parking Schedule_31467-1800-1807-
CD4.78 003
CD4.79 Refuse Provision Schedule_31467-1800-1807-004
Residential Accommodation Schedule_31467-1800-
CD4.80 1807-001
CD4.81 Air Quality Assessment
Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report and
CD4.82 Protection Plan
Contamination Desk Study and Preliminary Risk
CD4.83 Assessment (Phase 1) Report
CD4.84 Daylight and Sunlight Report
CD4.85 Energy Statement
CD4.86 ES Environmental Statement Volume 1: Non-Technical
Volume 1 Summary
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 Environmental Statement Volume 2: Main Text
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 164
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (a) 1. Introduction
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (b) 2. EIA Methodology
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (c) 3. Description of Site and Background
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (d) 4. Proposed Development and Alternatives
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (e) 5. Construction Programme and Methodology
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (f) 6. Highways, Traffic and Transport
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (g) 7. Built Heritage
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (h) 8. Archaeology
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (i) 9. Noise
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (j) 10. Air Quality
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (k) 11. Socio-Economics
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (l) 12. Ecology
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (m) 13. Townscape and Visual
CD4.86 ES
Volume 2 (n) 14. Cumulative Effects, Impacts and Mitigation
CD4.86 ES Environmental Statement Volume 3: Technical
Volume 3 Appendices
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (a) 1.1 Site Location Plan
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (b) 1.2 Phasing Plan
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (c) 1.3 Parameter Plans
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (d) 1.4 Glossary of Common Terms
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (e) 1.5 Final Scoping Response (17/00434/EIA2)
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (f) 4.1 Illustrative Masterplan
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (g) 5.1 Phasing Plan Drawing A02-P2-400
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (h) 6.1 Transport Assessment
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (i) 7.1 Built Heritage Statement
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (j) 7.2 Compendium of Verified Views
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (k) 8.1 Archaeological Impact Assessment
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (l) 9.1 Noise Assessment
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 165
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (m) 10.1 Air Quality Assessment (duplicate of CD4.81)
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (n) 11.1 Socio-Economic Policy Appraisal
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (o) 11.2 Community Infrastructure Audit
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (p) 11.3 Supporting Maps
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (q) 11.4 Glossary and Abbreviations
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (r) 12.1 Ecology AA
CD4.86 ES
Volume 3 (s) 13.1 TVIA
Flood Risk Assessment Part 1: Flood Risk Model and
CD4.87 Hydraulic Study
Flood Risk Assessment Part 2: Proposed Drainage
CD4.88 Strategy
CD4.89 Health Impact Assessment Report
Landscape General Arrangement_PL1581-GA-001-
CD4.90 02
CD4.91 Roofplan General Arrangement_PL1581-GA-002-03
CD4.92 Landscape Strategy PL1581-ID-001-01
CD4.93 Water Efficiency Statement March Submission
CD4.94 Ecology Phase 1 Habitats Survey
CD4.95 Verified Views Methodology
CD4.96 Marketing Views March Submission
E. LPA DOCUMENTS
AND
CORRESPONDENCE
REGARDING PLANNING
APPLICATION
18/00330/F CD5.1 Leave blank
F. OTHER RELEVANT
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENTS CD6.1 Leave blank
CD7.1 Application Form
CD7.2 CIL Form
CD7.3 Affordable Housing Statement (Rev A)
CD7.4 Planning Obligations Statement (Rev A)
CD7.5 Response to Consultation Comments
CD7.6 Town Centre Uses Statement
CD7.7 Retail Strategy Report (Rev A)
G. APPLICATION
Illustrative Ground Level Plan for Retail
DOCUMENTS
CD7.8 Strategy_31467-A03-P2-054 (Rev A)
(SEPTEMBER 2018)
CD7.9 Statement of Community Involvement Addendum
CD7.10 Design and Access Statement Addendum
CD7.11 Rev A_31467-1401-Drawing Register
CD7.12 Rev A Illustrative Master Plan 31467 A01P2001
CD7.13 Rev A_Access - 31467-A01-PP-300
CD7.14 Rev A_Development Parcel - 31467-A01-PP-400
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 166
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD7.15 Rev A_Land Use Ground Floor - 31467-A01-PP-200
CD7.16 Rev A_Land Use First Floor - 31467-A01-PP-201
CD7.17 Rev A_Land Use Third Floor - 31467-A01-PP-202
CD7.18 Rev A_Land Use Fourth Floor - 31467-A01-PP-203
CD7.19 Rev A_Land Use Seventh Floor - 31467-A01-PP-204
CD7.20 Rev A_Land Use Eighth Floor - 31467-A01-PP-205
CD7.20A Land Use 10th Floor 31467-A01-PP-206
CD7.21 Rev A_Land Use 12–19 Floor 31467-A01-PP-207
CD7.22 Rev A_Building Heights - 31467-A01-PP-100
CD7.23 Public Realm - 31467-A01-PP-500
CD7.24 Rev A_Detailed App Boundary B31467-A02-P2-101
CD7.25 Existing Buildings - 31467-A02-P2-200
Existing Buildings Demolition Plan - 31467-A02-P2-
CD7.26 201
CD7.27 Hybrid Application Boundary - 31467-A02-P2-100
Rev A_Illustrative Phasing Strategy - 31467-A02-P2-
CD7.28 400
CD7.29 Rev A Block A Ground Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-000
CD7.30 Rev A Block A 1st Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-001
CD7.31 Rev A Block A 2nd Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-002
CD7.32 Rev A Block A 3rd Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-003
CD7.33 Rev A Block A 4th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-004
CD7.34 Rev A Block A 5th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-005
CD7.35 Rev A Block A 6th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-006
CD7.36 Rev A Block A 6th Floor Park 31467-A03-P2-A-006A
CD7.37 Rev A Block A 7th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-007
CD7.38 Rev A Block A 8th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-008
CD7.39 Rev A Block A 9th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-009
CD7.40 Rev A Block A 10th Floor 31467-A03-P2-A-010
CD7.41 Rev A Block A Roof Level 31467-A03-P2-A-011
CD7.42 Rev A Block E Tower 31467-A03-P2-E-000
CD7.43 Rev A G Floor M Plan 31467-A03-P2-000
CD7.44 Rev A Basement Floor 31467-A03-P2-0B1
CD7.45 Rev A 1st Floor 31467-A03-P2-001
CD7.46 Rev A 2nd Floor 31467-A03-P2-002
CD7.47 Rev A 3rd Floor 31467-A03-P2-003
CD7.48 Rev A 4th Floor 31467-A03-P2-004
CD7.49 Rev A 5th Floor 31467-A03-P2-005
CD7.50 Rev A 6th Floor 31467-A03-P2-006
CD7.51 Rev A 7th Floor 31467-A03-P2-007
CD7.52 Rev A 8th Floor 31467-A03-P2-008
CD7.53 Rev A 9th Floor 31467-A03-P2-009
CD7.54 Rev A 10th Floor 31467-A03-P2-010
CD7.55 Rev A 11th Flooro31467-A03-P2-011
CD7.56 Rev A 12-19 1467-A03-P2-012-019
CD7.57 Rev A Storey Height 31467-A03-P2-050
CD7.58 Rev A Retail plan 31467-A03-P2-054
CD7.59 Rev A_Block A Section 1-3_31467-A04-P2-A-001
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 167
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD7.60 Rev A_Block A Sections 4-6_31467-A05-P2-A-002
CD7.61 Rev A_Block A Elevations 1-3_31467-A05-P2-A-001
CD7.62 Rev A_Tower 31467-A05-P2-E-001 Elev1 & Sec1
CD7.63 Rev A_Tower 31467-A05-P2-E-002 Elev2 & Sect2
CD7.64 Rev A_Tower 31467-A05-P2-E-003 Elev 3 & 4
CD7.65 Rev A_Illustrative Sections 1-3 31467-A04-P2-001
CD7.66 Rev A_Illustrative Sections 4-6 31467-A04-P2-002
CD7.67 Rev A_Phase 2 Elevation 1&2_31467-A05-P2-001
CD7.68 Rev A_Phase 2 Elevation 3&4_31467-A05-P2-002
CD7.69 Rev A_Phase 2 Elevation 5&6_31467-A05-P2-003
CD7.70 Rev A_Phase 2 Elevation 7&8_31467-A05-P2-004
Rev A_Illustrative Street Elevations_31467-A05-P2-
CD7.71 100
Rev A_Commercial Area Schedule_31467-1800-
CD7.72 1807-002
Rev A_Cycle Provision Schedule_31467-1800-1807-
CD7.73 005
Rev A_Proposed Car Parking Schedule_31467-1800-
CD7.74 1807-003
Rev A_Refuse Provision Schedule_31467-1800-
CD7.75 1807-004
Rev A_Residential Accommodation Schedule_31467-
CD7.76 1800-1807-001
CD7.77 Revised Air Quality Assessment
CD7.78 Daylight and Sunlight Report Addendum
CD7.79 Energy Statement (Rev A)
CD7.80 Fire Safety Overview
CD7.81 Environmental Noise Assessment Addendum
CD7.81 SEI Supplementary Environmental Information
CD7.81 SEI
(a) 1. Introduction
CD7.81 SEI
(b) 2. EIA Methodology
CD7.81 SEI
(c) 3. Description of Site and Background
CD7.81 SEI
(d) 4. Proposed Development and Alternatives
CD7.81 SEI
(e) 5. Construction Programme and Methodology
CD7.81 SEI
(f) 6. Highways, Traffic and Transport
CD7.81 SEI
(g) 7. Built Heritage
CD7.81 SEI
(h) 8. Archaeology
CD7.81 SEI
(i) 9. Noise
CD7.81 SEI
(j) 10. Air Quality
CD7.81 SEI
(k) 11. Socio-Economics
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 168
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD7.81 SEI
(l) 12. Ecology
CD7.81 SEI
(m) 13. Townscape and Visual
CD7.81 SEI
(n) 14. Cumulative Effects, Impacts and Mitigation
CD7.81 SEI
(o) Appendix SEI 1.6 Revised Parameter Plans
CD7.81 SEI
(p) Appendix SEI 4.2 Revised Illustrative Masterplan
CD7.81 SEI Appendix SEI 4.3 Alternative CT Scheme Illustrative
(q) Layout
CD7.81 SEI
(r) Appendix SEI 6.2 Transport Assessment Addendum
CD7.81 SEI Appendix SEI 7.3 Addendum to Built Heritage
(s) Statement
CD7.81 SEI Appendix SEI 7.4 Compendium of Verified Views
(t) Addendum
CD7.81 SEI Appendix SEI 9.2 Noise Assessment Update and
(u) Response to Consultee Comments
CD7.81 SEI Appendix SEI 10.2 Air Quality Assessment Version 2
(v) (duplicate of CD7.77)
CD7.81 SEI
(w) Appendix SEI 12.1 Dog Licence Data
CD7.81 SEI
(x) Appendix SEI 13.2 TVIA Addendum
CD7.82 Flood Risk Assessment Addendum
Landscape General Arrangement_PL1581-GA-001-
CD7.83 03
CD7.84 Roofplan General Arrangement_PL1581-GA-002-04
CD7.85 Landscape Strategy Addendum
CD7.86 Visitor Cycle Parking Strategy_PL1581-GA-006
CD7.87 Viability Report
CD7.88 Wind Assessment and Desk Review
CD7.89 Summary of Amendments
CD7.90 Marketing Views August Submission
CD7.91 Water Efficiency Statement September Submission
CD8.1 Historic England Advice
CD8.2 Ecology Note of Clarification
Correspondence with T Armitage (Air Quality -
CD8.3 (a) Anglian Square with Addendum)
Correspondence with T Armitage (Anglia Square Air
CD8.3 (b) Quality - Note of Clarification)
H. FURTHER Correspondence with T Armitage (Comments on
SUPPORTING CD8.3 (c) consultation response from Save Britain's Heritage)
DOCUMENTS Correspondence with T Armitage (Electric Vehicle
(NOVEMBER 2018) CD8.3 (d) Charging)
Correspondence with T Armitage (Historic England
CD8.3 (e) advice on Anglia Square)
CD8.3 (f) Correspondence with T Armitage (Re Mr Hussain)
Correspondence with T Armitage (Secure by Design
CD8.3 (g) Response)
CD8.4 Ecology Phase 2 Bat Survey Report, August 2018
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 169
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD8.5 Surface Water Drainage Correspondence
CD8.6 Air Quality and Traffic Generation 10 October 2018
Committee Report - Report to Planning Applications
I. LPA DOCUMENTS CD9.1 Committee 6 December 2018 (duplicate of CD2.15)
AND Minutes of Planning Applications Committee 6
CORRESPONDENCE CD9.2 December 2018 (duplicate of CD2.15)
REGARDING PLANNING Report to Norwich City Sustainability Panel 25
APPLICATION CD9.3 September 2019
18/00330/F DVS Review of Development Viability Assessment
CD9.4 (dated 9 November 2018)
Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) Non-
CD10.1 Technical Summary (NTS)
Assessment of the Likely Significant Effects Resulting
CD10.2 from Demolition Activities Version 2 Nov 2019
ENV001-ANGL-049; Site Waste Management Plan;
CD10.3 Version 2; FINAL
CD10.4 2019 Air Quality Annual Status Report (ASR)
CIHT Creating better streets Inclusive and accessible
CD10.5 places (2018)
CD10.6 Transport Energy Model (2018)
CD10.7 The Road to Zero (July 2018)
CD10.8 Manual for Streets (2007)
CD10.9 Manual for Streets 2 (Sep 2010)
CD10.10 Local Transport Note - Shared Space (Oct 2011)
CD10.11 The Inclusive Transport Strategy (July 2018)
Palmer v Herefordshire Council & ANOR [2016]
CD10.12 EWCA Civ 1061
R (app. Shimbles) v Bradford Metropolitan District
J. FURTHER CD10.13 Council [2018] EWHC 195 (Admin)
SUPPORTING Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243; [2016] 1
DOCUMENTS CD10.14 WLR 2682
Safe Rottingdean Ltd v Brighton and Hove City
CD10.15 Council [2019] EWHC 2632
Financial Viability in Planning – Royal Institution of
CD10.16 Chartered Surveyors (GN 94/2012)
Financial Viability in Planning - Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors: conduct and reporting (1st
CD10.17 Edition, May 2019)
Waste management in buildings - Code of Practice
CD10.18 BS5906-2005
CD10.19 NCC DMP Internal Space Standards Information Note
NCC DMP Accessible And Adaptable Dwellings
CD10.20 Information Note
CD10.21 Article by Pettit et al.
CD10.22 Article by Abhijith et al.
Inspector's conclusion after stage 1 of Wealden
CD10.23 District Council Local Plan Examination
Court of Appeal Decision- Shirley & Anor, R (On the
Application of) V SoS for Housing, Communities and
CD10.24 Local Government ([2019] EWCA Civ 22)
CD11.1 Statement of Case Norwich City Council
K. NORWICH CC's CORE
Statement of Case Weston Homes /Columbia
DOCS
CD11.2 Threadneedle
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 170
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD11.3 Statement of Case Historic England
CD11.4 Historic England - GL Hearn Report
CD11.5 Historic England - Alternative scheme (Ash Sakula)
CD11.6 Statement of Case Norwich Society
CD11.7 Statement of Case Save Britain's Heritage
CD11.8 Statement of Case Norwich Cycling Campaign
CD11.9 Statement of Common Ground (Nov 2019)
CD11.10 Statement of Common Ground - Heritage
CD11.11 Statement of Common Ground - Viability
Report to Sustainable development panel - Norwich
CD11.12 City Council – Reg. 10A review of DM policies
Government response to the technical consultation on
updates to national planning policy and guidance.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local
CD11.13 Government
CD11.14 Greater Norwich City Deal
CD11.15 Design South East - Review 1
CD11.16 Design South East - Review 2
CD11.17 Design South East - Review Tower
Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in
CD11.18 Planning Note 3 : The Setting of Heritage Assets
CD11.19 Tall Buildings: Historic England Advice Note 4 (2015)
CD11.20 Building for Life 12: Third edition (January 2015)
CD11.20A Building for Life 12: 2018 edition
Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited and (1) East
Northamptonshire District Council (2) English
Heritage (3) National Trust (4) The Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Governments, Case No:
CD11.21 C1/2013/0843,
The Forge Field Society v Sevenoaks District Council
[2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin); North Norfolk District
Council v Secretary of State for Communities and
CD11.22 Local Government [2014] EWHC 279 (Admin)
Land at Razor’s Farm, Chineham, Basingstoke RG24
8LS. Appeal Reference: APP/H1705/A/13/2205929,
Secretary of State for Communities and Local
CD11.23 Government letter
Historic England’s response to the planning
CD11.24 application consultation
Planning(Listed Buildings and conservation Area) Act
CD11.25 1990
Norwich Economic Strategy 2019-2024 - Norwich City
CD11.26 Council
The Great British Brain Drain: An analysis of
CD11.27 migration to and from Norwich, Centre for Cities.
Manual for Streets: Department for Transport
CD11.28 (duplicate of CD10.8)
Manual for Streets 2: Department for Transport
CD11.29 (duplicate of CD10.9)
Norwich Area Transportation Strategy (as amended)
CD11.30 - Norfolk County Council and Norwich City Council
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 171
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Local Transport Note 1/04: Policy, Planning and
Design for Walking and Cycling. Department of
CD11.31 Transport
CD11.32 Homes England – HIF Offer letter
CD11.33 Homes England - HIF Availability period
Attracting Talented People to come to work in
CD11.34 Norwich: The Challenge, the Norwich Society (2017)
Letter from Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local
CD11.35 Government dated 21 March 2019 (Call-in Letter)
Representation submitted by the Magdalen Street
CD11.36 Area and Anglia Square Traders Association (MATA)
Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance
CD11.37 (TG16) DEFRA February 2018
Historic England: Managing Significance in Decision
Taking in the Historic Environment (Good Practice
CD12.1 Advice in Planning Note 2, 2015)
English Heritage: Conservation Principles, Policies
and Guidance 2008, reissued by Historic England
CD12.2 2015
Cathedral Cities in Peril March 2015: Executive
CD12.3 Summary, Foster & Partners and English Heritage
Cathedral Cities in Peril March 2015: Full Report,
CD12.4 Foster & Partners and English Heritage
CD12.5 Anglia Square Character Area Appraisal (2017)
L. SAVE BRITAIN'S
140707 - Secretary of State Summary of decision
HERITAGE CORE DOCS
Letter- Smithfield General Market (Application
CD12.6 Reference - 1300150FULEIA)
Map showing nearby churches, surface car parks and
CD12.7 other proposed large-scale development sites
Norwich 'The City of Stories' leaflet, published by Visit
CD12.8 Norwich
190719- Secretary of State Summary of decision
Letter- Chiswick Curve (Application Reference-
CD12.9 APP/F5540/W/3180962)
CD12.10 130726- Bedford Case Judgment
CD12.11 Norwich Development Management Proposals Map
Conservation Area Appraisal, Designation and
Management: Historic England Advice Note 1
CD13.1 (Second Edition, 2019)
Increasing Residential Density in Historic
Environments - Report; Arup on behalf of Historic
CD13.2 England (2018)
Constructive Conservation: Sustainable Growth for
Historic Places; English Heritage 2013 reissued by
M. HISTORIC ENGLAND
CD13.3 Historic England 2015
CORE DOCS
National Design Guide: Planning practice guidance
for beautiful, enduring and successful places; Ministry
CD13.4 of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2019)
Norwich North City Vision: St Augustine's & Anglia
Square Regeneration Community Brief; Cathedral
Magdalen and St Augustine's Forum (CMSA) and St
Augustine's Community Together (ACT) Residents
CD13.5 Association
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 172
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
N. THE NORWICH
SOCIETY CORE DOCS CD14 Leave blank
CD15.1 ADMS Roads Software (website)
CD15.2 ADMS Urban Software (website)
Ambient air pollution and daily hospital admissions for
CD15.3 mental disorders in Shanghai
Air pollution: outdoor air quality and health Quality
CD15.4 standard [QS181] (website)
CD15.5 Air Quality A Briefing for Directors of Public Health
Central Norwich AQMA (Norwich City Council)
CD15.6 (website)
Reports and statements from the Committee on the
CD15.7 Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) (website)
National air quality objectives and European Directive
limit and target values for the protection of human
CD15.8 health
CD15.9 Environment Act 1995 (website)
Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air
CD15.10 pollution - a call for action
Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air
CD15.11 pollution. Report of a working party
Health effects of particulate matter (World Health
CD15.12 Organisation)
Review of interventions to improve outdoor air quality
CD15.13 and public health
CD15.14 The Lancet Commission on pollution and health
CD15.15 Air pollution: outdoor air quality and health (NICE)
O. NORWICH CYCLING
CAMPAIGN CORE DOCS Estimation of costs to the NHS and social care due to
CD15.16 the health impacts of air pollution: summary report
Associations of long-term average concentrations of
CD15.17 nitrogen dioxide with mortality
Norwich City Council 2018 Air Quality Annual Status
CD15.18 Report (ASR)
Estimating Local Mortality Burdens associated with
CD15.19 Particulate Air Pollution
CD15.20 Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution
CD15.21 Leave blank (duplicate of CD11.37)
CD15.22 UK Government Guidance
CD15.23 Impacts of Vegetation on Urban Air Pollution
Air quality guidelines. Global update 2005. Particulate
CD15.24 matter etc
Local Air Quality Management Policy Guidance
CD15.25 (PG16)
The Road to Zero Next steps towards cleaner road
transport and delivering our Industrial Strategy, UK
CD15.26 Govt 2019
Initial Comparison of EFT v9 with EFT v8 and
CD15.27 CURED v3A, Air Quality Consultants, 2019
CD15.28 DEFRA Clean Air Strategy 2019
DEFRA Air Quality damage cost update (Ricardo,
CD15.29 2019)
Dealing with Uncertainty in Vehicle NOx Emissions
CD15.30 within Air Quality Assessments, IAQM, 2018
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 173
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Norwich City Council 2012 Air Quality Annual Status
CD15.100 Report
Gladman, Kent case: Planning Inspector's Decision
CD15.101 letter, January 2017
Norwich City Council 2013 Air Quality Annual Status
CD15.102 Report
Norwich City Council 2014 Air Quality Annual Status
CD15.103 Report
Norwich City Council 2018 Air Quality Annual Status
CD15.104 Report
CD15.105 Norwich City Council 2015 Air Quality Action Plan
Norwich City Council 2016 Air Quality Annual Status
CD15.106 Report
Norwich City Council 2017 Air Quality Annual Status
CD15.107 Report
IAQM: Land-Use Planning & Development Control:
CD15.108 Planning For Air Quality
CD15.109 Leave blank (duplicate of CD10.4)
British Medical Journal editorial, Nov 2019, "The
health effects of fine particulate air pollution: The
CD15.110 harder we look, the more we find"
CD15.111 ClientEarth3 judgement, February 2018
CD15.112 ClientEarth2 judgement, December 2015
CD15.113 DEFRA Air Quality Statistics in the UK 1987 to 2018
CD15.114 DEFRA Air Quality Damage Cost Guidance
DEFRA website: Public Health: Sources and Effects
CD15.115 of PM2.5
British Heart Foundation: Environment Bill must go
CD15.116 further to protect against air pollution
CD15.117 Gladman, Kent case: Appeal Court judgement, 2020
CD15.118 Gladman, Kent case: High Court judgement, 2017
Press report (Guardian, Nov 2019): Living near busy
CD15.119 road stunts children's lung growth
Press Report (Eastern Daily Press, May 2019): Old
buses dumped in Norwich after other cities get new
CD15.120 buses
Press Report (airqualitynews.com, April 2019): PM10
CD15.121 and NO2 levels not improved since 2015
CD15.122 ClientEarth1 Supreme Court judgement, 2015
Norwich City Council 2015 Updating & Screening
CD15.123 Assessment
WHO Europe website: Update of WHO Global Air
CD15.124 Quality Guidelines (accessed Dec 2019)
WHO 2005: Air Quality Guidelines, Summary of risk
CD15.125 assessment
Norwich City Council 2019 Air Quality Annual Status
CD15.126 Report
A review of biases in the measurement of ambient
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by Palmes passive diffusion
CD15.127 tube, Air Quality Consultants, 2019
Investigation into Diffusion Tube Bias Adjustment
CD15.128 Factors, Air Quality Consultants, 2019
Average CO2 emissions of cars sold in UK up for
CD15.129 third year in row, Guardian, Jan 2020
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 174
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD15.130 NAEA Propertymark on Air Quality
Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report for the
CD16.1 Greater Norwich Local Plan (March 2017)
Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South
CD16.2 Norfolk: AMR 2016-17
CD16.3 Eastern Daily Press news article
Letter from Councillor Denise Carlo to PINs dated 21
P. NORWICH GREEN
CD16.4 October 2019
PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS CD16.5 Letter of Objection from Councillor Martin Schmierer
Statement by Dr Andrew Boswell on Affordable
CD16.6 Housing (June 2019)
Statement by Dr Andrew Boswell on Air Quality (June
CD16.7 2019)
Statement by Dr Andrew Boswell on Climate Change
CD16.8 and Energy
CD17.1 Norwich Over the Water Group
CD17.2 N O T W Statement 03 12 19
N O T W Proposals for consideration at calling in of
CD17.3 AS plans May 2019
Q. NORWICH OVER THE
CD17.4 N O T W Objections 1-5 April 2018 (1)
WATER SOCIETY
CD17.5 N O T W Booklet Contents Page (1)
REPRESENTATIONS
CD17.6 N O T W Booklet 1 December 2016
CD17.7 N O T W Booklet 2 April 2017
CD17.8 N O T W Booklet 3 March 2018 (1)
CD17.9 N O T W Schedule of Documents 12 12 19
R. NORWICH CC AND Email from labour current and ex councillors dated (2
NORFOLK CC LABOUR CD18.1 December 2019)
PARTY Written statement on behalf of labour and ex
REPRESENTATIONS CD18.2 councillors
S. CLIVE LEWIS MP
REPRESENTATIONS CD19 Leave blank
T. LOCAL RESIDENTS
REPRESENTATIONS CD20 Leave blank
CD21.1 Castle Mall full objection
CD21.2 Pegasus Group
CD21.3 Comments on case - Churches Conservation Trust
CD21.4 Email from Norfolk Gardens Trust (2 December 2019)
CD21.5 CMSA representation
CMSA - Appendix A. Brief for Anglia Square Site and
CD21.6 Community Vision Document
CMSA - Appendix B. Comparative Note on Skyline
U. THIRD PARTY CD21.7 and Views Protection Policies Norwich and York
REPRESENTATIONS CMSA - Appendix B (2) Heritage Gap Analysis Study
CD21.8 for Neighbourhood
CD21.9 Alan Selwyn
CD21.10 Tim Marshall
CD21.11 Merlin Waterson
CD21.12 Edwin Hall
CD21.13 Benedict Foley
CD21.14 Val Hart
CD21.15 Chris Corrin
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 175
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD21.16 Cicely Taylor
CD21.17 Dr Henry Crawley
CD21.18 Sue Tideswell (with attachment)
CD21.19 Mrs Airlie Inglis
CD21.20 Gaia Shaw
CD21.21 Dr Jennifer M. Freeman
CD21.22 Rosemary Charles
Chairman Norwich Conservative Federation (with
CD21.23 attachment)
CD21.24 Richard Broadbent
CD21.25 Email from Hugo Malik – 10 November 2019
CD21.26 Letter from Mrs M Hall - 24 May 2019
Email from Ian Couzens dated 1 August 2019
enclosing Letters to Homes England and Secretary of
CD21.27 State
CD21.28 Email from Denise Carlo – 16 July 2019
CD21.29 Letter from Ian Gibson – 20 June 2019
Email from the Reverend Dr Peter Doll dated 12 June
CD21.30 2019 enclosing letter of 11 October 2018
CD21.31 Email from Nina Trick – 6 June 2019
Email from Barbara Dinnage – 2 April 2019 (with
CD21.32 images)
Letter from Chris Starkie (New Anglia Local
CD21.33 Enterprise Partnership) - 21 May 2018
Letter from Michael Rayner (CPRE Norfolk) - 24 April
CD21.34 2019
Email from Jo Smith dated 1 May 2019 enclosing
CD21.35 letter from MP Clive Lewis of 15 January 2019
CD21.36 Email from Ian Gibson – 4 May 2019
CD21.37 Letters from John Howkins – 7 May 2019
CD21.38 Email from Jim Durrant – 27 May 2019
CD21.39 Email from Lisa Prior – 26 May 2019
CD21.40 Email from David Kitchen – 25 May 2019
CD21.41 Email from Gordon Reynolds – 25 May 2019
CD21.42 Email from Peter Jones – 25 May 2019
Submission by Tony Clarke (Norwich Cycling
CD21.43 Campaign) - 22 May 2019
CD21.44 Email from Caroline Harington – 8 April 2019
CD21.45 Email from Cadent Gas Ltd - 11 April 2019
CD21.46 Email from Alison Ward – 29 May 2019
CD21.47 Comments on case – Mr Toby Nicholson
CD21.48 Comments on case – Dr Alun Wyburn-Powell
CD21.49 Comments on case – Mr Cedric Lusher
CD21.50 Comments on case – Mr Andrew Brummell
CD21.51 Comments on case – Mr Roger Connah
CD21.52 Comments on case – Mrs Diana Arseneau-Powell
Comments on case – Mrs Catherine O'Ryan
CD21.53 Nicholson
CD21.54 Comments on case – Mrs Penelope Mounser
CD21.55 Comments on case – Mr Philip Mounser
CD21.56 Comments on case – Mrs Angela Reynolds
CD21.57 Letter from Mrs Julie Barfield – 24 May 2019
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 176
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Letter from Stuart McLaren (St Augustine's
Community Together Residents' Association) – 29
CD21.58 May 2019
CD21.59 Letters from Ben Hughes – 29 May 2019
Submission by MATA received 29 July 2019
CD21.60 (duplicated with CD11.36)
CD21.61 Letter from Anthony Rossi – 17 May 2019
CD21.62 Letter from Mrs S Holmes received - 13 May 2019
CD21.63 Letter from Richard E Hollox – 7 May 2019
Letter from Norwich Over the Water Group – 19 April
CD21.64 2019
V. ADDITIONAL
INTERESTED PARTIES' CD22.1 Mrs Sally Martin
REPRESENTATIONS CD22.2 J M Thomas
CD22.3 Norwich Conservative Federation
Circulated after 12PM on CD22.4 John Howkins
Tuesday 21 January CD22.5 George Carter
CD22.6 Henry G Cator
CD22.7 Anne and Stephen Restorick
CD22.8 Michael Gurney
CD22.9 Victoria Manthorpe
CD22.10 Gerard Stamp
CD22.11 Peter Woodrow
CD22.12 Dr Hugh and Mrs Mirabel Cecil
CD22.13 Paul Binski
CD22.14 Charlotte Crawley DL
CD22.15 Rhona Bulwer Long
CD22.16 Professor Clive Lloyd
CD22.17 Councillor Denise Carlo
CD22.18 Richard Broadbent 2
CD22.19 Pegasus Group 2
CD22.20 Norwich Green Party Representation
CD22.20A Norwich Green Party - Covering Letter
CD22.20B Norwich Green Party Representation - Summary
CD22.20C Norwich Green Party Representation - Statement
CD22.20D Norwich Green Party Representation - Appendix 1
CD22.21 Norwich Green Party - Cllr Martin Schmierer
CD22.22 Mrs Anne Olivant
CD22.23 Julia Edgeley
CD22.24 Mr and Mrs Hollingsworth
CD22.25 Mrs Helen Burrell
CD22.26 Catholic Church in Norwich (with letter)
CD22.27 Jenny Roberts
CD22.28 Keith Day
CD22.29 Andrew Brown
CD22.30 Andrea Cope (with photos)
CD22.31 Keith and Gaik-Im Harrison
CD22.32 Chris Mardell
CD22.33 Sally and Michael Fowler
CD22.34 David Baker
CD22.35 Tim Knox
CD22.36 Susan Elliott
CD22.37 Jan Cassidy
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 177
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD22.38 Diana Don
CD22.39 Dr David Preston
CD22.40 The Norfolk Churches Trust
CD22.41 Colin Willis
CD22.42 Bolton Agnew
CD22.43 Anna Restorick
CD22.44 Anne Page
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 178
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Annex D – Description of development
Hybrid (part full/part outline) application on site of 4.51 ha for demolition and
clearance of all buildings and structures except Gildengate House and the phased,
comprehensive redevelopment of the site with 7 buildings and refurbished Gildengate
House for a maximum of 1,250 residential dwellings (Use Class C3); 11,350 sqm
hotel (Use Class C1); 9,850 sqm ground floor flexible retail, services, food and drink,
office, non-residential institution and other floorspace (Use Classes
A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/Sui Generis (bookmakers up to 250 sqm GIA and public
conveniences)); 1,150 sqm ground floor flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes
A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1), service yards, cycle and refuse stores, plant rooms and other
ancillary space; up to 3,400 sqm cinema (Use Class D2); 1,300 sqm place of worship
(Use Class D1); and multi-storey car park (public element: 600 car spaces, 24
motorcycle spaces), with associated new and amended means of access, closure of
existing means of access, widening of footways, formation of service/taxi/car
club/bus stop laybys and other associated highway works on all boundaries,
maximum of 940 car parking spaces for Use Classes C1/C3/B1/D1, (of which
maximum of 40 spaces for C1/B1/D1), hard and soft landscaping of public open
spaces comprising 2 streets and 2 squares for pedestrians and cyclists, other
landscaping including existing streets surrounding the site, service infrastructure and
other associated work; (all floor areas given as maximum gross external area except
where indicated as GIA);
comprising;
Full planning permission on 1.78 ha of the site for demolition and clearance of all
buildings and structures, erection of 1 and part of a 2nd building for 393 residential
dwellings (Use Class C3) (323 flats in Block A and 70 flats with cycle store in tower
within Block E (tower only, 20 storeys)), and for 4,420 sqm ground floor flexible
retail, services, food and drink, non-residential institution and other floorspace (Use
Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/Sui Generis (bookmakers, up to a maximum of 250 sqm
GIA within entire scheme, and public conveniences)), 380 sqm ground floor flexible
commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1), service yard, cycle and
refuse stores, plant rooms, other ancillary space and multi-storey car park (public
element: 600 car spaces, 24 motorcycle spaces), within Block A with associated new
and amended means of access, closure of existing means of access, widening of
footways, formation of service/taxi/car club/laybys and other associated highway
works on Edward Street, widened footway, bus stop layby and other associated
highway works on Magdalen Street, 333 covered car parking spaces for Use Class C3,
hard and soft landscaping of public open spaces comprising 2 streets and 2 squares
for pedestrians and cyclists, other landscaping, service infrastructure and other
associated works; (all floor areas given as maximum gross external area except
where indicated as GIA);
And
Outline planning permission on 2.73 ha of the site, with all matters reserved, for
demolition and clearance of all buildings and structures except Gildengate House,
erection of 4 and part of 5th buildings (Blocks B and D – H, with Block E to
incorporate tower with full planning permission) and refurbishment and change of
use from Use Class B1(a) to C3 of Gildengate House (Block J), for a maximum of 857
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 179
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
residential dwellings (Use Class C3), 11,350 sqm hotel (Use Class C1), 5,430 sqm
ground floor flexible retail, services, food and drink, office, non-residential institution
and other floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/Sui Generis (bookmakers, up
to a maximum of 250 sqm GIA within entire scheme)), 770 sqm ground floor flexible
commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1), service yard, cycle and
refuse stores, plant rooms and other ancillary space; up to 3,400 sqm cinema (Use
Class D2), with associated means of access, widening of footways, formation of
service/taxi laybys and other associated highway works including shared
cycle/pedestrian path on New Botolph Street, Pitt Street and St Crispins Road, a
maximum of 607 car parking spaces for C1/C3/B1/D1, of which circa 593 covered
spaces (with a maximum of 40 for C1/B1/D1), and circa 14 open spaces for C3 (on
west side of Edward Street for Block B), landscaping, service infrastructure and other
associated works; and erection of building for 1,300 sqm place of worship (Use Class
D1) (Block C), on north side of Edward Street with associated on site car parking and
landscaping; (all means of access reserved; all floor areas given as maximum gross
external area except where indicated as GIA).
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 180
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Annex E – Schedule of application plans
Planning Application Documents (Ref: 18/00330/F) (March 2018)
CD4.26 31467-A02-P2-200 - Existing Buildings
CD4.27 31467-A02-P2-201 - Existing Buildings Demolition Plan
CD4.28 31467-A02-P2-100 - Hybrid Application Boundary
Application Documents (September 2018)
CD7.12 31467 A01-P2-001 - Rev A Illustrative Master Plan
CD7.13 31467-A01-PP-300 - Rev A Parameter Plan - Access
CD7.14 31467-A01-PP-400 - Rev A Parameter Plan - Development Parcel
CD7.15 31467-A01-PP-200 - Rev A Parameter Plan Land Use Ground Floor
CD7.16 31467-A01-PP-201 - Rev A Parameter Plan Land Use First Floor
CD7.17 31467-A01-PP-202 - Rev A Parameter Plan Land Use Third Floor
CD7.18 31467-A01-PP-203 - Rev A Parameter Plan Land Use Fourth Floor
CD7.19 31467-A01-PP-204 - Rev A Parameter Plan Land Use Seventh Floor
CD7.20 31467-A01-PP-205 - Rev A Parameter Plan Land Use Eighth Floor
CD7.20(a) 31467-A01-PP-206 - Rev A Parameter Plan Land Use 10th Floor
CD7.21 31467-A01-PP-207 - Rev A Parameter Plan Land Use Floor 12-19
CD7.22 31467-A01-PP-100 - Rev A Parameter Plan Proposed Building Heights
CD7.23 31467-A01-PP-500 - Rev A Parameter Plan Public Realm
CD7.24 31467-A02-P2-101 - Rev A Site Layouts - Detailed App Boundary
CD7.28 31467-A02-P2-400 – Rev A Site Layouts - Illustrative Phasing Strategy
CD7.29 31467-A03-P2-A-000 - Rev A Block A Ground Floor
CD7.30 31467-A03-P2-A-001 - Rev A Block A 1st Floor
CD7.31 31467-A03-P2-A-002 - Rev A Block A 2nd Floor
CD7.32 31467-A03-P2-A-003 - Rev A Block A 3rd Floor
CD7.33 31467-A03-P2-A-004 - Rev A Block A 4th Floor
CD7.34 31467-A03-P2-A-005 - Rev A Block A 5th Floor
CD7.35 31467-A03-P2-A-006 - Rev A Block A 6th Floor
CD7.36 31467-A03-P2-A-006A - Rev A Block A 6thFloor Parking
CD7.37 31467-A03-P2-A-007 - Rev A Block A 7th Floor
CD7.38 31467-A03-P2-A-008 - Rev A Block A 8th Floor
CD7.39 31467-A03-P2-A-009 - Rev A Block A 9th Floor
CD7.40 31467-A03-P2-A-010 - Rev A Block A 10th Floor
CD7.41 31467-A03-P2-A-011 - Rev A Block A Roof Level
CD7.42 31467-A03-P2-E-000 - Rev A Block E Tower
CD7.43 31467-A03-P2-000 - Rev A Ground Floor - Masterplan
CD7.44 31467-A03-P2-0B1 - Rev A Basement
CD7.45 31467-A03-P2-001 - Rev A 1st Floor
CD7.46 31467-A03-P2-002 - Rev A 2nd Floor
CD7.47 31467-A03-P2-003 - Rev A 3rd Floor
CD7.48 31467-A03-P2-004 - Rev A 4th Floor
CD7.49 31467-A03-P2-005 - Rev A 5th Floor
CD7.50 31467-A03-P2-006 - Rev A 6th Floor
CD7.51 31467-A03-P2-007 - Rev A 7th Floor
CD7.52 31467-A03-P2-008 - Rev A 8th Floor
CD7.53 31467-A03-P2-009 - Rev A 9th Floor
CD7.54 31467-A03-P2-010 - Rev A 10th Floor
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 181
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
CD7.55 31467-A03-P2-011 - Rev A 11th Floor
CD7.56 A03-P2-012-019 - Rev A 12th to 19th Floor
CD7.57 31467-A03-P2-050 - Rev A Storey Height
CD7.58 31467-A03-P2-054 - Rev A Retail plan
CD7.59 31467-A04-P2-A-001 - Rev A Block A Section 1, 2 & 3
CD7.60 31467-A05-P2-A-002 - Rev A Block A Section 4, 5 & 6
CD7.61 31467-A05-P2-A-001 - Rev A Block A Elevations 1, 2 & 3
CD7.62 31467-A05-P2-E-001 - Rev A Tower Elevation 1 & Section 1
CD7.63 31467-A05-P2-E-002 - Rev A Tower Elevation 2 & Section 2
CD7.64 31467-A05-P2-E-003 - Rev A Tower Elevations 3 & 4
CD7.65 31467-A04-P2-001 - Rev A Illustrative Sections 1, 2 & 3
CD7.66 31467-A04-P2-002 - Rev A Illustrative Sections 4, 5 & 6
CD7.67 31467-A05-P2-001 - Rev A Phase 2 Elevations 1 & 2
CD7.68 31467-A05-P2-002 - Rev A Phase 2 Elevations 3 & 4
CD7.69 31467-A05-P2-003 - Rev A Phase 2 Elevations 5 & 6
CD7.70 31467-A05-P2-004 - Rev A Phase 2 Elevations 7 & 8
CD7.71 31467-A05-P2-100 - Rev A Illustrative Street Elevations
CD7.83 PL1581-GA-001-03 Landscape General Arrangement
CD7.84 PL1581-GA-002-04 Roof plan General Arrangement
CD7.86 PL1581-GA-006 Visitor Cycle Parking Strategy
Further Supporting Documents (November 2018)
SK11-A – Overall Drainage Strategy
CD8.5 (within Surface Drainage Correspondence.pdf)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 182
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Annex F – Information to inform the Secretary of State’s Habitats
Regulations Assessment
INTRODUCTION
The application relates to Anglia Square, Norwich. It proposes the demolition of the
existing buildings at Anglia Square and a mixed use scheme of redevelopment. This
would include up to 1,250 dwellings, 70 of which would be in a 20 storey tower, up to
11,000 sqm of flexible retail/commercial floorspace, a replacement cinema, a
replacement multi-storey car park, a new facility for the Surrey Chapel and a hotel.
Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, which has been transposed into UK law through
the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of
Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (for plans and projects
beyond UK territorial waters (12 nautical miles)), requires that where a plan or
project is likely to result in a significant effect on a European site either alone or in
combination with other plans or projects, and where the plan or project is not directly
connected with or necessary to the management of the European site, a competent
authority (the Secretary of State in this instance) is required to make an Appropriate
Assessment of the implications of that plan or project on the integrity of the
European site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.
PROJECT LOCATION
Anglia Square is located on the northern side of Norwich city centre. The site extends
to approximately 4.5 hectares. Most of this is accounted for by the Anglia Square
shopping centre and adjoining land which is enclosed by St Crispins flyover, Pitt
Street, Edward Street and Magdalen Street. Anglia Square comprises retail, leisure
and office buildings developed during the 1960s and 1970s following the construction
of St Crispins Road. The shopping centre is arranged around a pedestrian precinct
and includes large format stores together with smaller units. At the upper levels are
Sovereign House and Gildengate House, two substantial office buildings of 6 - 7
storeys. Neither of these buildings has been used as offices since the late 1990s.
Gildengate House is currently used as temporary studio space by artists whilst
Sovereign House has remained unused. A former cinema, a nightclub and a large
multi-storey car park are also now vacant.
The following European designated sites are present in the vicinity of the site:
• Broadland Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar site and Special Area for
Conservation (SAC)
• The River Wensum SAC
Broadland SPA, Ramsar site and SAC
A number of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designations underpin the
SPA/Ramsar/SAC designations. Yare Broads and Marshes SSSI and Crostwick Marsh
SSSI are around 7.5 km from the site and Bure Broads and Marshes SSSI is about
10.3 km from the site.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 183
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
The qualifying features of the SPA include bittern and marsh harrier in the breeding
season and Bewick’s swan, bittern, hen harrier, ruff and whooper swan over winter.
It also qualifies by supporting populations of migratory bird species and by regularly
supporting at least 20,000 waterfowl.
The qualifying features of the Ramsar site include calcareous fens, alkaline fens and
alluvial forests. Annex II species include Desmoulin’s whorl snail, otter and fen
orchid. Populations occurring at levels of international importance include tundra
swan, gadwall and northern shoveler.
The Broads SAC hosts a range of habitats and species, overlapping with the above
designations.
River Wensum SAC
The River Wensum SAC is around 3.2 km to the northwest of the site at its closest
point. It hosts the habitat rivers with floating vegetation often dominated by water-
crowfoot. Annex II species include white-clawed crayfish, bullhead, brook lamprey
and Desmoulin’s whorl snail.
HRA IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT
There is no likelihood of direct impacts on the designated sites given their
geographical separation from the application site and the absence of hydrological or
air quality pollution pathways. Potential effects are limited to increased recreational
use of the designated sites by new residents at the application site. This needs to be
considered cumulatively with anticipated residential development in the area covered
by the Greater Norwich Joint Core Strategy (JCS).
PART 1 - ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
The Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the JCS highlighted the need for green
infrastructure (GI) to mitigate potential in-combination and cumulative effects
associated with recreation impacts on Natura 2000 sites resulting from the JCS
growth proposals. The mitigation measures suggested were the implementation of GI
and the allocation of greenspace to protect specific natural assets and designated
sites.
The application site is not within the boundary of a designated site nor within a buffer
area identified by Natural England (NE). During the EIA screening exercise NE
advised that the development may potentially impact on designated sites, namely
the Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar site, as a result of
recreational disturbance due to in combination impacts with other housing
development.
Responding to consultation on this application NE advised the Council that an adverse
effect on integrity could not be ruled out when considered in combination with other
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 184
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
housing developments. NE made referred to research by Panter et al (2016)335 which
found that increased recreation pressures can cause impacts to designated interest
features. For the sites surveyed there would be a predicted increase of 14% in access
by Norfolk residents as a result of new housing during the current plan period. The
primary recreational activity was dog walking (41%) and walking (26%). For the
designated sites in the Broads the impacts identified related to disturbance caused to
breeding, wintering and passage birds, trampling and erosion, eutrophication and
contamination.
The applicants submitted further information relating to predicted levels of dog
ownership within the proposed development, an audit of parks and open spaces
within walking distance (or a short drive) from the site as well details of GI projects
identified in the Greater Norwich Infrastructure Plan 2018 (GNIP). The GNIP supports
the delivery of growth identified in the JCS and identifies schemes to contribute to
the protection and enhancement of the strategic green infrastructure network. Based
on comparison with other (mainly flatted) developments the applicants concluded
that there would be a low level of dog ownership at the application site. They also
considered that new residents wishing to walk, with or without dogs, would have
access to a wide range of options and would not need to rely on the designated sites.
They noted that the measures set out in the GNIP relating to the provision of GI are
planned and in the process of delivery, and that these measures will mitigate the
impact of new development across the Greater Norwich area. They concluded that
likely significant effects could be ruled out, either alone or in combination.
Having considered this information NE agreed that the effects from the development
alone are not likely to be significant. However, without suitable mitigation being
secured, NE advised that it is not possible to conclude that the proposal is unlikely to
result in significant effects on the European sites in question in combination with
other new housing proposals.
The Council proceeded on the basis that mitigation would be required and that an AA
would need to be carried out.
CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES
Broadland SPA
Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate and
ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by
maintaining or restoring:
• the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features
• the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features
• the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features
rely
• the population of each of the qualifying features, and
• the distribution of the qualifying features within the site.
335 Visitor Surveys at European Protected Sites across Norfolk during 2015 and 2016,
Footprint Ecology
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 185
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Broadland SAC
Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate and
ensure that the site contributes to achieving the favourable conservation status of its
qualifying features, by maintaining or restoring:
• the extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats
of qualifying species
• the structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural
habitats
• the structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species
• the supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the
habitats of qualifying species rely
• the populations of qualifying species, and
• the distribution of qualifying species within the site.
River Wensum SAC
Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate and
ensure that the site contributes to achieving the favourable conservation status of its
qualifying features, by maintaining or restoring:
• the extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of
qualifying species
• the structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural
habitats
• the structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species
• the supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the
habitats of qualifying species rely
• the populations of qualifying species, and
• the distribution of qualifying species within the site.
PART 2 - FINDINGS IN RELATION TO ADVERSE EFFECTS ON INTEGRITY
The potential for an adverse effect on integrity arises from increased recreational
pressure, specifically dog walking and walking. The nature of the proposed
development is such that dog ownership is likely to be low. The proposed mitigation
is the implementation of GI measures which would be attractive and more convenient
to new residents than travel to the designated sites.
The Council has commented that the GNIP includes measures which have been
specifically identified to deliver enhanced local recreational opportunities within
Norwich. These include schemes to enhance walking routes leading out of the city, in
particular Marriott’s Way and the Riverside Walk, which provide access to the
countryside and the Norfolk Trails network. These schemes will provide suitable and
appropriate recreational opportunities for people, including dog walkers.
The GI initiatives identified in the GNIP are funded through Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL). This means that all housing development in the greater Norwich area
makes a proportionate contribution. The summary of NE’s advice is as follows:
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 186
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
NO OBJECTION - SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE MITIGATION BEING SECURED
We consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would, in
combination with other housing developments in the Greater Norwich area, lead to
increased recreational pressures which would:
• have an adverse effect on the integrity of The Broads Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), Broadland Special Protection Area (SPA) and
Broadland Ramsar; and
• damage or destroy the interest features for which the component Sites of
Special Scientific Interest of the above sites have been notified.
In order to mitigate these adverse effects and make the development acceptable, the
following mitigation measures are required:
• on site green infrastructure measures as described in the application
documents should be secured; and
• a proportionate financial contribution to the existing off-site GI and local GI
initiatives, to help to reduce the effects of recreational pressures on
designated sites.
We advise that an appropriate planning condition or obligation is attached to any
planning permission to secure these measures.
The application is hybrid, in that it contains detailed and outline elements. The public
realm works within the scheme would fall within the detailed element. Detailed
design and implementation of the GI would be covered by a landscaping scheme
which would be approved under suggested condition 5. Public access to the public
realm works would be secured through schedule 10 of the section 106 Agreement.
If the proposed development is subject to CIL then it would make a proportionate
contribution to the GI mitigation through that means. However, the viability
assessment submitted to the Inquiry assumes that the scheme will be exempted
from CIL under the Council’s exceptional circumstances relief policy. Applications for
CIL relief would be made on a phased basis. Schedule 9 of the section 106
Agreement provides that, if any phase of the development is granted exemption from
CIL, then a GI contribution would be payable for that phase at a rate of £50 per
dwelling. This has been agreed by the Council to be an appropriate and
proportionate level of contribution.
HRA CONCLUSIONS
These conclusions represent my summary and assessment of the evidence presented
to me. This is not an appropriate assessment. That will be a matter for the Secretary
of State to undertake as the competent authority.
It is not possible to exclude the possibility of an adverse effect on the integrity of
European sites in the absence of mitigation. This is due to the potential for in
combination effects of increased recreational pressures from new housing.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 187
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Mitigation measures have been identified which will deliver enhanced local
recreational opportunities within Norwich, thereby avoiding additional recreational
pressures on the designated sites. Arrangements are in place for all housing schemes
to make a proportional contribution to such measures through the collection of CIL.
In the event that all or part of the application scheme is exempt from CIL, the
section 106 Agreement makes provision for appropriate and proportionate
contributions to be made.
With mitigation having been secured, it would be reasonable to reach a finding of no
adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites in question.
Appendix
Relevant documents submitted by the applicants:
• ES Chapter 4: Ecology (SEI Chapter 4)
• Appendix 12.1 Ecology - information to inform AA
• Appendix SEI 12.1 - Dog licence data
• Note of Clarification (dated November 2018)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 188
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
ANNEX G – CONDITIONS
Conditions relating to the detailed element – Block A, tower and ground floor external
areas (including highway works and public realm)
1) The development hereby permitted and identified within the red line
boundary shown on plan A01–P2–101A shall be begun before the expiration
of THREE years from the date of this permission, except for the tower
element on development parcel E/F which shall be begun before the
expiration of FIVE years from the date of this permission.
2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with
the plans, drawings and details as specified in the attached schedule.
3) No above grounds works in relation to the tower element of development
parcel E/F hereby permitted shall commence until the local planning
authority has approved all reserved matters for development parcel E/F, as
identified on Parameter Plan A01–PP-400A.
4) Before their first use or application in the construction of block A or the
tower element of development parcel E/F hereby permitted the following
details (including manufacturer, product, colour finish, samples and sample
panel where necessary) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
local planning authority:
a) external materials (to include bricks, metal cladding of the upper
level and rooftop plant, window frames, doors, rainwater goods,
balcony balustrades, car park ventilation panels, green vegetated
walls);
b) external decoration and patterning to brickwork, render, joinery and
metalwork;
c) brick bond and mortar;
d) large scale cross-sectional plans showing depth of window reveals,
depth of recesses offering vertical subdivisions in the façade bays
and the projection of balconies;
e) external flues, background and mechanical ventilation, soil/vent
pipes and their exits to the open air; and
f) shopfront components and assembly through the submission and
approval of a Shopfront Design Guide.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details as
approved.
5) With the exception of any site clearance works, works of demolition,
archaeological work, tree protection works, ground remediation and ground
investigations, no development shall take place in pursuance of this
permission until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
The landscaping scheme shall include all external areas, public realm areas
(including within the adopted highway) and for Block A, all external
amenity areas and biodiverse roofs forming part of that block (and for the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 189
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
avoidance of doubt the scheme shall not include areas within the outline
area of the application as landscaping is a reserved matter). The scheme
shall include the following details:
Hard landscape details:
a) materials for paved areas, including manufacturer (where relevant),
product type and colour or sample;
b) existing and proposed functional services above and below ground
(e.g. power and communication cables, pipelines, manholes,
supports);
c) all new boundary treatments at the site, including the material and
colour finish of any walls, fences or railings;
d) proposed finished levels;
e) any minor artefacts and structures (e.g. external cycle parking,
bollards, seating, litter bins, signage);
f) play trail scheme – including demonstration that the strategy has
been directly influenced by heritage interpretation and the
incorporation of public art features;
Soft landscape details:
g) planting plans showing the location, species and numbers of
proposed new trees and the locations of areas of shrubs and other
planting;
h) planting schedules, noting species, planting sizes and proposed
numbers and densities where appropriate;
i) written specifications (including cultivation and other operations
associated with tree, plant and grass establishment);
Implementation and management details:
j) ecological enhancement scheme;
k) for Block A details of the provision for bird (Swift) and bat boxes in
accordance with the recommendations within Section 14 of the
Phase 1 Habitat Survey (extended)
l) an implementation programme clearly indicating a timescale for the
completion of all landscaping and ecological enhancements; and
m) a landscape management plan, including management
responsibilities and a schedule of maintenance operations for all
landscaped areas following implementation.
The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the agreed
details and implementation programme and the communal residential
landscaped areas of the site shall be made available for the enjoyment of
residents of the development hereby permitted. Management of the
landscaping shall commence immediately after planting in accordance with
the agreed details. All hard and soft landscaping works shall thereafter be
retained as such.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 190
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
If within a period of FIVE years from the date of planting, any tree or plant
(or any tree or plant planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted or
is destroyed or dies or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning
authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the
same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the
same place no later than the end of the first available planting season
(October-March inclusive), unless the local planning authority first gives its
written consent to any variation.
6) Prior to first use of the public multi-storey car park hereby approved a Car
Park Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The plan shall include the following details:
a) tariff structure - this shall support the function of the large district
centre by the public and discourage all day city centre commuter car
parking; and
b) details of the number and location of the disabled and electric
vehicle charging car parking spaces. The details shall include the
specification of the public electric vehicle charging stations along
with management and maintenance arrangements.
The public car park shall be operated in accordance with the approved Car
Park Management Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local
planning authority.
7) The public car park shall not be brought into use until the entry and exit
systems have been configured to provide a data feed to enable the display
of available spaces on the city wide variable message sign (VMS) system
and that data feed is fully operational, connected to the VMS system and
the available spaces are displayed. The data feed and connection to the
VMS system shall thereafter be retained.
8) Within two calendar months of the first use of the public multi-storey car
park hereby approved all use of the surface level parking within the
application site boundary by members of the public shall permanently
cease. For the avoidance of doubt this does not preclude essential
operational parking during the construction phase which may be approved
under condition 28.
9) Prior to first occupation of any dwelling within block A hereby approved a
scheme for monitoring the usage of residential car and cycle parking within
the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall include a survey methodology, a
timescale for carrying out the agreed methodology, and details of how the
results are reported to the local planning authority.
10) No more than 75% of residential parking spaces in block A hereby
approved shall be available for residential occupiers of that block, unless
following full occupation of the remainder of the development there remain
parking spaces in Block A which are not allocated to any unit.
11) Block A hereby permitted shall include the provision of a foodstore with a
minimum floor area of 800 sqm (Gross Internal Area). Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 55(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
or the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 191
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
2015 (or any Act or Order revoking and re-enacting that Act or Order, with
or without modification), a minimum 80% of the net sales area of the
foodstore shall be used for the sale of convenience goods and no more than
20% of the net sales area for the sale of non-convenience goods, where
convenience goods are defined as everyday essential items, including food,
drinks, newspapers/magazines and confectionery.
12) Prior to first use of the ground floor of Block A for commercial purposes the
public toilets, including the 'Changing Places' shall be installed and brought
into use. The facilities shall be permanently retained thereafter.
Conditions relating to the outline element
13) Application for the approval of all reserved matters shall be made to the
local planning authority not later than the expiration of five years beginning
from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall
be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval
of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the
final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Within any phase (as approved under condition 20) no construction
associated with the development hereby permitted shall take place within
the Hybrid Application Boundary shown on plan 31467-A02-P2-100
(excluding land identified by the Detailed Application Boundary 31467-A02-
P2-101 A) in pursuance of this permission until approval of the reserved
matters for the relevant phase of the development approved under
condition 20 has been obtained from the local planning authority. The
reserved matters shall relate to access, layout, scale, external appearance
and landscaping (communal amenity areas and green roofs only).
14) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance
with the application forms, supporting documents and plans as specified
within the attached schedule and the reserved matters shall comply with
the parameters of the submitted details in terms of the approximate layout
of the buildings, routes and open spaces within the site, the parameters for
height, width and length of each building and its scale, and the area or
areas where access to the development will be situated.
15) The following details and assessments shall be submitted at the relevant
reserved matters stage:
a) Development parcels E/F and G/H: Residential Parking Monitoring
Report (see condition 9);
b) Development parcel B: updated Air Quality Assessment. The
Assessment shall be informed by a further period of Nitrogen Dioxide
monitoring (details of which shall be agreed in writing with the local
planning authority) and include full details of air quality mitigation
measures for residential development within that phase; and
c) Formation of vehicular access from St Crispins Road: Arboricultural
Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement.
Conditions relating to all phases
16) The development hereby approved shall be limited to a maximum quantum
of floorspace or numbers as follows:
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 192
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
a) Housing (Use Class C3): 1250 residential units;
b) Flexible commercial floorspace (Uses Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, D1
and specified sui-generis use (betting offices): 11,000 sqm (Gross
External Area (GEA)), with specified sui-generis use being limited to
maximum of 250 sqm Gross Internal Area (GIA);
c) Place of worship (Use Class D1): 1,300 sqm (GEA);
d) Public car park: 600 car spaces, 24 motorcycle spaces;
e) Hotel (Use Class C1): 11,350 sqm (GEA);
f) Cinema (Use Class D2): 3,400 sqm (GEA); and
g) Other parking (for Use Classes C1, C3, B1 and D1): 950 car spaces
(of which a maximum of 40 spaces shall be available for operational
use within Use Classes C1, B1 and D1).
17) The flexible commercial floorspace hereby approved and referred to in the
Retail Strategy Report (Rev A) shall include a minimum of 1,500 sqm Gross
Internal Area (GIA) of floorspace for purposes within Use Classes A3 and
A4. A minimum of 75% of this Class A3/A4 floorspace shall be located
around the new 'leisure' square enclosed by the floorspace coloured purple
on drawing A03-P2-054 within the Retail Strategy Report (Rev A) and shall
not exceed an overall total floorspace across the development of 3,500 sqm
(GIA).
18) The reserved matters application for development parcel G/H as identified
on Parameter Plan A01-PP-400A hereby approved shall include a cinema of
around 3,400 sqm Gross External Area in the location illustrated on drawing
A03-P2-054 ’03 Plans - Illustrative Ground Level Plan for Retail Strategy’
with a primary entrance facing into St George’s Street as shown on the
same plan.
19) The commercial floorspace identified in blue on drawing A03-P2-054
(contained within the Retail Strategy Report Revision A) shall include a
minimum of five units, each with a ground floor area between 75 and 150
sqm Gross Internal Area (GIA) and a further five units, each with a ground
floor area between 150 and 250 sqm GIA.
20) The development shall be carried out in accordance with drawing A02-P2-
400 or an alternate phasing plan which has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the
commencement of development or of any subsequent phase of the
development.
21) Prior to the commencement of any demolition works within each phase (as
approved under condition 20) a Demolition Statement shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement
shall include a detailed methodology for the retention and protection of any
retained frontages during the construction phase and shall be substantiated
by a structural engineer's report. In the case of phase 1 (as agreed under
condition 20) the statement shall include a detailed methodology for the
retention of 100 Magdalen Street and include detailed plans indicating
remediation works for the retained frontages and details of temporary and
permanent access arrangements for the premises.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 193
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
22) There shall be no demolition of Surrey Chapel until a permanent
replacement facility has been provided in accordance with the reserved
matters for development parcel C (required to be approved under condition
13) and the facility is available for use.
23) There shall be no occupation of any part of development parcel E/F as
identified on drawing A01-PP-400A until demolition of Sovereign House is
complete.
24) There shall be no demolition of numbers 43 to 45 Pitt Street until reserved
matters have been approved for development parcel E/F and a contract or
sub-contract for carrying out the structural works of redevelopment on that
development parcel has been entered into.
25) Prior to any demolition or the commencement of any works a Demolition
and Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access Route, which shall
incorporate adequate provision for addressing any abnormal wear and tear
to the highway together with wheel cleaning facilities, shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority, together with
proposals to control and manage demolition and construction traffic using
the 'Demolition and Construction Traffic Access Route'.
For the duration of the demolition and construction period all traffic
associated with the development shall comply with the Demolition and
Construction Traffic Management Plan and use only the 'Demolition and
Construction Traffic Access Route' and no other local roads, unless
approved in writing by the local planning authority, or as directed (without
written approval) by the emergency services, highway authority, statutory
undertakers or other body authorised to direct traffic.
26) Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no
construction works above slab level shall commence on site until the
following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority:
a) detailed drawings for the off-site highway improvement works as
indicated on drawings 1072878-D15/16-003-TP P12; 1072878-D26-
001-TP P13; 1072878-D18-003-TP P03;
b) an implementation plan for the off-site highway works; and
c) a long term management plan, including management
responsibilities and a schedule of maintenance operations for all
landscaped areas.
The highways works shall be completed as approved in accordance with the
approved implementation plan.
27) Notwithstanding condition 26, the Edward Street Cycle Improvements
(details of which are required to be agreed under that condition) shall be
completed prior to the commencement of any above ground level
construction works in pursuant of the development of block A hereby
approved.
28) No development shall take place within any phase (as agreed under
condition 20), including any works of demolition, in pursuance of this
permission until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 194
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
(CEMP) (which shall take account of the cumulative impact of other nearly
development taking place, at the time of submission) has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The CEMP shall include the following:
a) a statement on how the proposed development will be built, with
method statements to outline how major elements of the works
would be undertaken;
b) vehicle parking for site operatives and visitors;
c) proposals for loading/unloading plant and materials;
d) protocol for managing scheduling and timing of construction traffic
arriving and leaving the site;
e) protocol for managing vehicles that need to wait for access to the
site;
f) temporary site access;
g) signing system for works traffic;
h) site access warning signs;
i) storage of plant and materials;
j) measures for the prevention of dust, suppression of noise and
abatement of other nuisance arising from development works;
k) location of all ancillary site buildings;
l) erection and maintenance of security hoardings, including decorative
displays and facilities for public viewing where appropriate; and
m) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition
and construction.
The details and measures included within the CEMP shall ensure pedestrian
routes through the site (consisting of one east-west route and one north-
south route) are provided and the Anglia Square Shopping Centre remains
open for business, insofar as possible, and safely accessible to members of
the public and tenants throughout the construction period.
The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period,
unless an amendment is approved in writing by the local planning
authority.
29) No development, other than demolition down to existing ground level, shall
take place in any phase in pursuance of this permission until an
archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation for the site has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
Written Scheme of Investigation shall include an assessment of significance
and research questions and for each phase:
a) the programme and methodology for site investigation and
recording;
b) the programme for post investigation assessment;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 195
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
c) provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and
recording;
d) provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the
analysis and records of the site investigation;
e) provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and
records of the site investigation;
f) nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to
undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of
Investigation.
No development, other than demolition down to existing ground level, shall
take place within any phase unless in accordance with the approved
archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.
No phase of the development shall be occupied until, in respect of that
phase, the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been
completed in accordance with the programme set out in the approved
archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation and provision has been
made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive
deposition has been secured.
30) Any historic or archaeological features not previously identified which are
revealed when carrying out the development hereby permitted shall be
retained in-situ and reported to the local planning authority in writing
within two working days. Works shall be halted in the area of the building
affected until provision has been made for retention and/or recording in
accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority.
31) No development, other than demolition down to existing slab level, shall
take place in any phase in pursuance of this permission until the following
components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with
contamination of the site have each been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority:
a) a site investigation scheme, based on the Phase 1 Desk Study and
Preliminary Risk Assessment (Reference CON01-NORW-045 Version
2 dated 16 March 2018) to provide information for a detailed
assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected,
including those off site; and
b) a written report containing the site investigation results and the
detailed risk assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be
affected and, based on these, if required, an options appraisal and
remediation strategy for each phase giving full details of the
remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
Any works on site within each phase shall be in accordance with the
scheme as approved and any changes to any of the details specified above
would require the further express consent of the local planning authority.
No occupation of any phase of development hereby approved shall take
place until a verification plan and a proposed monitoring, maintenance and
contingency plan for that phase have been submitted to and approved in
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 196
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
writing by the local planning authority. The verification plan shall provide
details of the data that has been collected in order to demonstrate that the
works set out in the approved remediation strategy are complete for that
phase and shall identify any requirements for longer term monitoring of
pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
The proposed monitoring, maintenance and contingency plan shall identify
how these requirements will be met.
32) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to
be present, then no further development shall be carried out in pursuance
of this permission until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in
writing by local planning authority detailing how this contamination shall be
dealt with in accordance with the remediation scheme as set out above.
Only when evidence is provided to confirm the contamination no longer
presents an unacceptable risk can development continue.
33) No drainage system for the infiltration of surface water drainage into the
ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the local
planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it
has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to
controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details.
34) Prior to the commencement of any piling operations in any phase a Piling
Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The Piling Method Statement shall detail the type
of piling to be undertaken, why this method has been selected, measures
to be taken to minimise noise and vibration, a demonstration that there is
no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater and a plan showing where
the piles are to be installed. Guidance is contained in BS5228 Noise control
on Construction and Open sites - Part 4: Code of Practice for noise and
vibration control applicable to piling operations. The contractor is required
to take the best practicable means to minimise noise and vibration. Piling
shall only be undertaken in accordance with the approved Piling Method
Statement unless an amended method statement has been approved in
writing by the local planning authority.
35) All imported topsoil and subsoil for use within any phase on the site shall
either be certified to confirm its source and that it is appropriate for its
intended use or, in the absence of suitable certification, be subject to
analysis of the imported material along with evaluation against the derived
assessment criteria for this site. No occupation of any completed part of
that phase of the development shall take place until a copy of the
certification has been submitted to the local planning authority.
36) At each reserved matters stage the following information and measures,
together with an updated Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage
Strategy for the entire site (taking account of approved updated FRA and
Drainage Strategies for previous phases), shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority:
a) Detailed specific tables and corresponding plans of flood depths and
proposed mitigation of flood resistance and resilience measures to
be included in each building, highway, pedestrian area and loading
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 197
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
bay (to expand on that information provided in Table 5 and section 7
of the FRA (part 1)). This shall include first fit infrastructure in
commercial buildings to ensure any conduits between commercial
areas to provide electricity and water are set above the flood depths
expected at each location (expanding in more detail from Figure 3
and Table 2 of the FRA (part 1)).
b) Additional surface water flood modelling taking account of any
approved updated FRA and Drainage Strategies for previous phases
and any flood barriers or flood proof walls proposed to prevent water
entry into ground floor properties.
c) An assessment of the cumulative impact of the development on off-
site flood risk to existing properties within the Study Impact Area.
The assessment should include:
• an assessment of changes in flood depths off-site at more
frequent flood events to include 3.33% Annual Exceedance
Probability (1:30) and 1.3% Annual Exceedance Probability
(1:75) to assess the impacts of the changes in flood routing
from the site;
• a ground truthing exercise on the assumed thresholds of
properties within the surface water model;
• a property level protection survey and provision of retrofit of
flood resistance/resilience measures subject to access being
made available to the relevant properties at reasonable
times within a period of 4 weeks prior to submission of the
FRA;
• details of mitigation measures, where this is shown to be
necessary, along with a timescale for implementation of the
works.
d) Information to show how any phasing of the development will affect
the overall drainage strategy and what arrangements, temporary or
otherwise, will need to be in place at each stage of the development
in order to ensure the satisfactory performance of the overall surface
water drainage system for the entirety of the development.
e) Information regarding the location of utility plant and specific design
flood levels for those locations. Details of appropriate mitigation
and/or evidence that freeboard will be in place to ensure continued
operation during a design flood event.
The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details
(both temporary and permanent) which shall be implemented prior to first
occupation of each component part of that phase.
37) Prior to the commencement of works breaking existing ground or slab level
in any phase (as approved under condition 20) detailed designs of a surface
water drainage scheme for that phase shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall accord with
additional details submitted in relation to condition 36 and the submitted
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (Part 1 Flood Risk, Hydraulic Modelling Study
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 198
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
and Impact Study Final Version dated 9 March 2018 by EAS) and Drainage
Strategy (Part 2 Proposed Drainage Strategy Final Version dated 9 March
2018 by EAS). The scheme shall address the following matters:
a) Surface water brownfield runoff rates will be attenuated to 242l/s
combined at Edward Street, Pitt Street and St Crispins Road as
agreed with Anglian Water and stated within section 4.15 of the
FRA/Drainage Strategy.
b) Detailed designs and provision of surface water attenuation storage,
sized and designed to accommodate the volume of water generated
in all rainfall events up to and including the critical storm duration
for the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) return period,
including allowances for climate change. Green roofs shall be
designed to maximise available storage attenuation within the
structural design of the building.
c) Detailed designs, modelling calculations and plans of the drainage
conveyance network in the:
• 3.33% AEP critical rainfall event to show no above ground
flooding on any part of the site from the drainage network
alone.
• 1% AEP critical rainfall plus climate change event to show
the depth, volume and storage location of any above ground
flooding from the drainage network alone ensuring that
flooding does not occur in any part of a building or any utility
plant susceptible to water (e.g. pumping station or electricity
substation) within the development.
d) The design of any drainage conveyance and storage structures
should include appropriate freeboard allowances and will use up-to-
date rainfall data and appropriate use of FEH descriptors,
considering the critical rainfall duration expected.
e) Details of how all surface water management features are to be
designed in accordance with The SuDS Manual (CIRIA C697, 2007)
or the updated The SuDS Manual (CIRIA C753, 2015), including
appropriate treatment stages for water quality prior to discharge
(such as green roofs and tree pits).
f) A maintenance and management plan detailing the activities
required and details of who will adopt and maintain the surface
water drainage features for the lifetime of the development. This will
include any pumped drainage system and any additional
maintenance required considering the additional water from off-site
(which is likely to be poorer quality and contain debris) which may
cause blockage.
The approved surface water drainage scheme for that phase shall be
implemented prior to the first occupation of the corresponding phase and
shall thereafter be managed and maintained as approved.
38) No occupation of any phase of the development shall take place until a
flood warning and evacuation plan for that phase has been submitted to
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 199
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall
provide details of the procedures for flood warning and evacuation and shall
include details of flood warning notices to be erected, including their
content and locations. No occupation of any part of that phase shall take
place until the notices have been erected for that part of that phase and
thereafter the notices shall be kept legible and clear of obstruction for the
lifetime of the development.
39) Prior to the commencement of above ground level construction works
within each phase (as approved under condition 20) details of fire hydrant
provision (served by mains water supply) for that phase of development
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. No occupation of any phase hereby approved shall take place
until the hydrants for that phase have been provided and made available
for use as approved. The hydrants shall be retained as such thereafter.
40) Prior to the commencement of above ground level construction works
within each phase (as approved under condition 20) a crime prevention
strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority in consultation with the Police. The strategy shall demonstrate
how the development makes reasonable endeavours to meet 'Secured by
Design' standards in the context of the approved external layout and
internal building general arrangements. The strategy shall include details of
the following:
a) Secured by Design physical protection measures to be incorporated
in the commercial premises, residential blocks and units, residential
and public car parks and communal service areas and stores;
b) external and courtyard communal lighting (to BS 5489);
c) CCTV arrangements;
d) plant rooms to be lockable with robust security rated doors;
e) bin stores to be lockable;
f) cycle stores to be lockable; and
g) security rated doors and windows for each unit (as relevant to the
position of the window).
Each phase shall be constructed and the development thereafter managed
in accordance with the approved strategy.
41) With the exception of phase 1, no above ground development of any
further phase (as approved under condition 20) shall commence until a
Noise Impact Assessment to establish the noise environment and the
required attenuation performance relevant to each residential façade within
that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The Noise Impact Assessment shall be informed by a
further period of noise monitoring (details of which shall first be approved
in writing by the local planning authority) and shall include full details of
noise mitigation measures for the residential development within that
phase.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 200
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Mitigation measures (including details of sound attenuation between
commercial spaces and adjoining dwellings, trickle vents, mechanical
ventilation and glazing) shall result in attenuation to an internal level of
30dB at night and 35dB during the daytime for habitable rooms as
demonstrated at the date of approval of the mitigation measures.
The approved mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to
occupation and retained as such thereafter.
42) Prior to the commencement of above ground level construction works
within each phase, with the exception of Phase 1 and block D in phase 2, a
further Air Quality Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The Air Quality Assessment shall be
informed by a further period of Nitrogen Dioxide monitoring (details of
which shall first be agreed in writing with the local planning authority) and
shall include full details of air quality mitigation measures for commercial
and residential development within that phase.
The approved mitigation measures shall be implemented in full for each
part of each phase prior to occupation of each part of each Phase and
retained thereafter.
43) At least 10% of the residential dwellings (applicable to free market and
affordable dwellings separately) within the development hereby approved
shall be designed and built to meet requirement M4(2) of the 2015 Building
Regulations for accessible and adaptable dwellings.
44) The development hereby approved shall be designed and built to meet the
regulation 36 2(b) requirement of 110 litres/person/day water efficiency set
out in part G2 of the 2015 Building Regulations for water usage.
45) Prior to the commencement of above ground level construction works
within each phase, details of water conservation measures designed to
maximise water conservation for non-residential uses shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No commercial use
in any phase of the development hereby approved shall take place until the
measures for that phase have been installed as approved and brought into
use and such measures shall be permanently retained thereafter.
46) Prior to first occupation of any commercial floorspace (excluding public car
parking) within each phase (as approved under condition 20) an Energy
Scheme for that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The Energy Scheme shall set out the measures to
provide energy from decentralised, renewable or low–carbon sources to
achieve at least the equivalent estimated renewable contribution of the
Baseline Energy for the site as set out in section 8.01(ii) of the Energy
Statement Report – Revision A.
No use of the commercial floorspace in that phase shall take place until the
agreed measures have been installed and brought into use and such
measures shall be permanently retained thereafter.
47) The residential development hereby permitted in any phase (as approved
under condition 20) shall incorporate the sustainable design and
construction measures to achieve the estimated energy and carbon
emissions reductions specified in section 8.00 of the Energy Statement
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 201
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
Report – Revision A or such other measures (which shall achieve at least
the equivalent estimated energy and carbon emissions) as may be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior
to works above ground level on that phase.
48) No occupation or use of any part of any phase of the development hereby
approved shall take place until details of all external lighting, including any
security or other intermittent lighting, relevant to that part of that phase
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority.
Such details shall include specifications for the proposed lighting, its
location and position within the site, height and levels of illumination. The
details shall also specify that any external lighting includes cowling, or
other similar device, to ensure that the lighting only illuminates the site
directly.
The external lighting shall be specified having regard to the need to
minimise the risk to aviation and should be of a flat glass, full cut-off
design, and should be horizontally mounted to prevent light spill above the
horizontal.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details
approved for that part of that phase and retained as such thereafter.
49) No use of any commercial premises (including public car parking) within
any phase (as approved under condition 20) shall take place until:
a) an Anglia Square Shopping Centre Travel Information Plan has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The Travel Information Plan shall:
• make provision for travel information to be publicised to
existing and potential future staff, customers and visitors; and
• specify the different methods to be used for publicity and the
frequency of review; and
b) the travel information has been made available in accordance with
the Plan as approved.
This information shall include details of the public transport routes
(including particular reference to Norwich Park and Ride) and services
available within 800 metres walking distance of the site, cycle parking
provision and facilities for cyclists on site and any other measures which
would support and encourage access to the site by means other than the
private car. Once made available it shall be maintained thereafter in
accordance with the agreed review details.
50) No residential occupation of any dwelling within each phase (as approved
under condition 20) shall take place until:
a) a Residential Travel Information Plan has been prepared and
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The Travel Information Plan shall:
• make provision for travel information or information sources to
be publicised to residents; and
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 202
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
• specify the different methods to be used for publicity and the
frequency of review; and
b) the travel information or information sources have been made
available in accordance with the Plan as approved.
This information shall include details of the public transport routes and
services available within 800 metres walking distance of the site, on site
cycle parking provision, city wide cycling route network, car club provision
and any other measures which would support and encourage access to the
site by means other than the private car. Once made available it shall be
maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed review details.
51) Prior to first occupation of any dwelling within each phase (as approved
under condition 20) a detailed scheme for the provision of Electric Vehicle
Charging Points (EVCP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The scheme shall make EVCP provision in
accordance with the table on page 39 of the Design and Access Statement -
Addendum and additional information provided in the email from the
applicant dated 8th November 2018.
No occupation of any dwelling within each phase shall take place until the
EVCP provision for that part of that phase has been installed as approved
and brought into use. Such provision shall be permanently retained
thereafter.
52) The residential car parking provision within the development hereby
permitted shall be used only for the vehicles of the residents of the
development or their visitors and for no other purpose, including public,
commuter or contract parking.
53) Prior to first occupation of any dwelling within each part of each phase (as
approved under condition 20) a detailed scheme for secure bicycle parking
and refuse and recycling storage within that part of that phase shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
approved details shall be installed prior to first occupation of that part of
that phase of the development and shall be retained and maintained in this
condition thereafter.
54) Prior to first occupation of any commercial floorspace within each phase (as
approved under condition 20) a detailed scheme for secure staff bicycle
parking and refuse and recycling storage within that phase shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
approved details shall be installed prior to first occupation of that phase of
the development and shall be retained and maintained in this condition
thereafter.
55) Prior to first occupation of each phase (as approved under condition 20) a
Delivery and Servicing Management Plan for permanent delivery and
servicing arrangements in that phase and any completed phases and
interim arrangements (operational during the construction phase) for
phases yet to be completed shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The Plan shall include operational
arrangements for delivery areas, bays and routes through the site.
The development shall be operated in accordance with the agreed details.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 203
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
56) The floorspace for purposes within Use Classes A3 and A4 hereby permitted
shall not be open to the public, trading, or have members of the public, as
customers or guests, on the premises other than at the following times:
07:00 hrs to 24:00 hrs Friday to Sunday
07:00 hrs t0 23:30 hrs Monday to Thursday
57) The cinema hereby permitted shall not be open to the public until a scheme
setting out screening times and any other measures to safeguard the living
conditions of local residents has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The cinema shall thereafter be operated in
accordance with the approved scheme.
58) Prior to first use of any premises for purposes within Use Class A3 or A4 a
scheme for the effective control of fumes and odours from the premises, or
to justify that there will be no fumes or odours generated by the occupier,
shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority.
The detailed scheme shall include where required the position of
ventilation, extraction, fume or flue outlet points and the type of filtration
or other fume treatment to be installed and used in the premises in
pursuance of this permission, together with a schedule of maintenance.
The use shall not commence until the approved scheme has been installed
and is operational and thereafter it shall be retained in full accordance with
the approved details and the maintenance of the system, including any
flue, shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme as agreed.
59) Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 7, Class I of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any
Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification),
no plant or machinery shall be installed or erected on the site unless details
have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The details shall include:
a) evidence that the rating level of the noise from plant/machinery
shall be at least 5dBA lower than the existing background noise level
at any given time of operation. The noise levels shall be measured or
predicted 1m externally to the nearest window at the nearest
residential façade. Measurement and assessment shall be made
according to British Standard BS8223 and shall take into account
cumulative impact from other plant requirements of the
development;
b) details of any enclosure or screening; and
c) details specifying the maintenance procedure and schedule.
Once installed, any such plant or machinery shall thereafter be retained
and maintained in accordance with the approved details.
60) Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, B, C and D
of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without
modification), no communication apparatus or antennae shall be installed
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 204
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
on any building hereby approved without express grant of permission by
the local planning authority.
61) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 55(2)(a) of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 or the Town and Country Planning General Permitted
Development Order 2015 (or any Act or Order revoking and re-enacting
that Act or Order, with or without modification), the development hereby
approved permits a maximum of 11,000 square metres Gross External Area
of flexible commercial floorspace and this shall not be exceeded by internal
or external alteration of the buildings without the specific grant of a further
permission.
62) Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class A of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any
Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification),
the change of use of floorspace falling within Class A3 (restaurants and
cafes) of the Schedule to the Use Classes, to a use falling within Class A1
(shops) or Class A2 (financial and professional services) of that Schedule
which results in the reduction of Class A3 and A4 floorspace within the
identified Leisure Square bounded by the units shaded in pink and yellow
on drawing A03-P2-054 ’03 Plans- Illustrative Ground Level Plan for Retail
Strategy’ falling below 1,125 sqm Gross Internal Area (as required by
condition 17) shall require the express grant of permission by the local
planning authority.
63) Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M and Class O
of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without
modification), the change of use of floorspace falling within Use Classes A1,
B1a and specified sui-generis uses (betting offices) to a use falling within
Use Class C3 (dwelling houses) shall require the express grant of
permission by the local planning authority.
64) Prior to the first use of any commercial floorspace within each phase (as
approved under condition 20) an Anglia Square Public Space Strategy
covering public spaces associated with that phase and taking into account
any such strategy agreed for an earlier phase shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Strategy shall
include management and maintenance arrangements for all public realm
spaces as completed for that phase (routes and squares) and shall include:
a) terms of use for tenants including outdoor seating;
b) events strategy;
c) external noise management arrangements;
d) security and anti-social behaviour management arrangements;
e) signage scheme; and
f) litter bins and litter collection.
The public spaces shall be managed in full accordance with the agreed
Strategy thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning
authority.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 205
Report APP/G2625/V/19/3225505
65) Prior to the first use of any commercial floorspace within the development a
Shop Mobility Scheme including facilities and arrangements to make the
large district centre more accessible to people who have mobility difficulties
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The Scheme shall include details of long term management
arrangements. The development shall be operated in accordance with the
approved Scheme.
66) The open market residential flats hereby approved shall be designed to
meet the standards in ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described
space standard’ dated March 2015 for, in so far as the 1 bedroom flats are
concerned, 1 bed 2 person 1 storey dwellings or, in so far as the 2 bedroom
flats are concerned, 2 bed 4 person 1 storey dwellings’.
End of schedule of conditions
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 206
www.gov.uk/mhclg
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the
legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or
making an application for Judicial Review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or
contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division,
Strand,London,WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).
The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of
State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only
if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow
that the original decision will be reversed.
SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The decision may be challenged by making an application for permission to the High Court
under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).
Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act
With the permission of the High Court under section 288 of the TCP Act, decisions on called-in
applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may
be challenged. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on
the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have
not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application for leave under this section must
be made within six weeks from the day after the date of the decision.
SECTION 2: ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
Challenges under Section 289 of the TCP Act
Decisions on recovered enforcement appeals under all grounds can be challenged under section 289
of the TCP Act. To challenge the enforcement decision, permission must first be obtained from the
Court. If the Court does not consider that there is an arguable case, it may refuse permission.
Application for leave to make a challenge must be received by the Administrative Court within 28 days
of the decision, unless the Court extends this period.
SECTION 3: AWARDS OF COSTS
A challenge to the decision on an application for an award of costs which is connected with a
decision under section 77 or 78 of the TCP Act can be made under section 288 of the TCP Act if
permission of the High Court is granted.
SECTION 4: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision
has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the
Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the day after the date of the decision. If
you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at
the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter,
quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice
should be given, if possible.