Seven homes at Curtis House, Curtis Road, Norwich

What was proposed

The application proposed seven residential dwellings with parking, gardens, turning space, cycle and bin storage, and shared access arrangements.

“The Proposal 11. The proposal is for re-development of the site with 7No. residential dwellings. Following receipt of Outline Planning consent in 2022 and demolition consent in 2023 the existing buildings on the site have already been demolished and the site cleared ready for construction. Two pairs of semi-detached dwellings would front the residential part of Curtis Road to the north. All four of these dwellings would have direct vehicular access off the road.”

“Transport Matters Key Facts Vehicular access Plots 1-3 direct access from north, Plot 4 direct access from north for one space and access to garage from shared drive to the east. Plots 5-7 shared access from east No of car parking spaces Two per dwelling, each with EV charging No of cycle parking spaces In garden sheds Servicing arrangements Bin storage in each garden, collection point is shared drive for plots 5-7”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The cleared site stood at the corner of Curtis Road, beside residential properties and an employment area containing commercial and industrial uses.

“The site and surroundings 1. The site occupies land at the corner of Curtis Road, a road of mixed character off the outer ring road. The road extends south off Mile Cross Lane with a defined employment area on the eastern side and at the southern end within which uses include a furniture retailer, a hardware shop, a used car dealers an engineering company and a brewery. 3.”

“This was served by a hard surfaced informal parking area to the north with two vehicular access points and a further gated access at the southwest corner. A mix of flat and pitched roofs covered the single storey building that had evolved and been extended over a number of years. The walls had a mix of cladding, blockwork and facing brick. The demolition of this site was approved under application reference: 23/00393/DEM.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

Officers assessed the principle, design, amenity, transport, drainage, trees, landscaping, biodiversity, contamination and nutrient neutrality.

“Regarding the drainage concerns, this application includes new drainage to prevent surface water entering the highway from vehicle crossovers, increased areas of soft landscaping to accommodate surface water and a condition requiring sustainable drainage methods to be used on site where practical. Concern has been raised in representation that the proposal will result in the loss of pavement space. The proposed development shall only take place on privately owned land.”

“Since the original submission, revisions have been made to the scheme under consideration to increase areas of soft landscaping which is considered to be beneficial to surface water drainage, but as the additional benefit of design aesthetic, amenity space and improved biodiversity. A landscaping condition for minor developments should be attached to a consent, this can deal with the surface treatment details. Main Issue 7. Trees 107.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Consultees raised requirements about contamination, noise mitigation, highway works, landscaping, nutrient credits and protection of designated sites.

“Tree Protection Officer (Norwich City Council) 46. No objections from an arboricultural perspective. Condition TR7 - works on site in accordance with AIA/AMS/TPP would be appropriate. Natural England 47. SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE: FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IMPACTS ON DESIGNATED SITES 48. As submitted, the application could have potential significant effects on: - The Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) - Broadland Ramsar 49.”

“Natural England consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would have an adverse effect on the integrity of European designated sites scoped into the Norfolk Green Infrastructure and Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (‘GIRAMS’).”

Officer report

Concerns from neighbours

Six representations raised concerns about traffic, parking, noise, privacy, light, construction, flooding, wildlife, open space and commercial operations.

“Issues raised Response Increase from previously approved 7 dwellings to 8 dwellings The application has since been revised to comprise 7 dwellings. Potential of at least 18 extra vehicles Main Issue 4 (Transport) Existing traffic, deliveries, overspill parking, large potholes and blocked drain Main Issue 4 (Transport) Conflict with movement of industrial vehicles Main Issue 4 (Transport) Appropriate access for emergency vehicles? Main Issue 4 (Transport) Reduces width of…”

“Main Issue 3 (Amenity) Overlooking and loss of privacy Main Issue 3 (Amenity) Loss of light to garden and house Main Issue 3 (Amenity) Disruption from construction Main Issue 3 (Amenity) Impact on operation of adjacent building Main Issue 3 (Amenity) and Main Issue 4 (Transport) Effect on wildlife, loss of open space Main Issue 8 (Landscaping and open space) More buildings add to road flooding Main Issue 6 (Flood Risk) and Main Issue 4 (Transport) Amenity space is poor Main…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planner presented the application and assisted the committee during its consideration.

Members’ discussion

Members queried housing supply, gravel, drainage, landscaping and Natural England’s objection before concluding that the proposal was acceptable overall.

“In response to a member’s question the Development Management Team Leader and Planner confirmed that the Council was currently only able to demonstrate a 4.6-year housing land supply, this figure would be continually monitor and members would be informed if this changed. The housing land supply was calculated from consents granted and allocation and constituted the delivery.”

“In response to member questions the Planner confirmed that the density of the application had previously been agreed and was policy compliant with the Council’s planning policies. It was considered that amenity offered to the proposed dwellings was suitable. The concerns raised by neighbouring properties were considered and members felt that the proposal on balance was acceptable. Members discussed the merits of the application.”

Minutes