Temporary public car park at Victoria House, Queens Road, Norwich

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective temporary public use of the former 266-space private car park, operating from 6am to 11pm.

“The Proposal 9. Temporary planning permission is sought for use of the former private car park as a public car park. The application is retrospective. The car park previously used in association with the office use comprised 266 spaces. The application seeks the use of an equivalent 266 spaces by the public between the hours of 6am – 11pm. Payment would be online or via an App.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The former office headquarters was demolished in 2024, leaving a vacant city-centre site beside homes, conservation areas and heritage assets.

“The site and surroundings 1. The site is the former office headquarters of Marsh insurance who vacated the site in 2022. The site previously comprised a large multistorey office building and a surface level car park used in association with the business and occasionally by the public during the Christmas shopping period. The car park is accessed through a site access on St Stephens Road (A11) and exited via a ramped access onto Brazen Gate.”

“Trees on the site are covered by a group Tree Preservation Order 5. The majority of the site is located adjacent to the boundary of the Newmarket Road conservation area. The entrance to the site falls within the boundary. The site is close to the boundary of the City Centre Conservation Area the boundary of which runs along the southern side of Queens Road. 7.”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents objected to noise, poor security, traffic movements, congestion, the site’s appearance, competition and missed opportunities for better use.

“Noted but the system allows for the submission of retrospective applications Noise disturbance from cars and groups of people shouting. Recurring problem at weekends See Main Issue 3 Lack of security /lighting…”

“Competition is not a material planning consideration but see Main Issue 1 in relation to tariff Appearance of the site - shoddy and overgrown…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Davis spoke against the application for Town Close residents, while the applicant’s representative supported the temporary car park and its management measures.

What members debated

Members discussed redevelopment, parking demand, surface quality, accessibility, security, lighting, traffic arrangements, the parking cap and the meaning of temporary use.

“The Committee heard that the proposal struck the right balance between providing a necessary service while ensuring impacts were mitigated. In response to questions from the Committee the Senior Planner confirmed that she was expecting an application to be submitted for the redevelopment of the site within the next four weeks.”

“Some members considered that as the full planning application for the redevelopment of the site was due to be considered shortly there was no need for the site to be used as a temporary car park. The quality of the car park was raised as a concern, especially the accessibility for wheelchair users. The cap within DM29 should not be considered a target for the number of car parking spaces and there were several car parks in close proximity to the application site.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted six in favour, three against and one abstention on a proposal to approve the application with an additional disabled-parking condition.

“RESOLVED, with six voting in favour, three against and one abstention, that application 25/00750/U was approved as detailed in the officer recommendation and as amended subject to the following conditions: 1) Temporary permission – 18 months; 2) In accordance with plans; 3) Minimum tariff charges – implemented within 14 days 4) Operation in accordance with Car Park Management Plan - measures in place within 1 calendar month of the date of decision.”

Minutes