Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2023 by A Hickey MA MTRPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 May 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/G2625/W/22/3292590 Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Hall Road, Norwich NR1 2PW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Kach Capital Estates against the decision of Norwich City Council. • The application Ref 21/01460/F, dated 13 October 2021, was refused by notice dated 24 November 2021. • The development proposed is removal of billboards and construction of 6 no. apartments and associated landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appellant has drawn my attention to the emerging Greater Norwich Local Plan which has been submitted for examination. However, I am not aware of the extent of unresolved objections or whether its policies will be considered as consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Consequently, in accordance with paragraph 48 of the Framework, I give it limited weight. 3.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision During the appeal, the appellant submitted an existing topography drawing and a formal written statement1 provided by an engineer on the ground conditions of the site. The Council have had the opportunity to comment on the details provided. On this basis, I do not consider that any party would be unfairly prejudiced, and I therefore have had consideration to the submitted details in determining this appeal. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on the significance of the Railway Bridge as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA); • Whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for the future occupiers; • The effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No 95 Hall Road (No 95); 1 GRM Letter Date: 03/02/2022 prepared by R H Crossland (Senior Engineering Geologist) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/G2625/W/22/3292590 • The effect of the development on Biodiversity; and • The effect of the development on land stability and ground conditions. Reasons 5. This section of Hall Road contains a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings, a short parade of shops, a pedestrian steel bridge and a locally listed bridge. The former railway line under the bridge is now a pedestrianised route (Lakenham Way) and is set markedly down from Hall Road. 6. Properties on this side of Hall Road are arranged in a discernible building line with modest gaps between them. As well as being set back from the road by small front gardens, properties are also set slightly below the existing road level. The majority of properties on this side of Hall Road also have generously sized verdant rear gardens which adjoin Lakenham Way. These verdant gardens are a feature of Lakenham Way and alongside the rear of the largely underdeveloped appeal site form part of a green buffer creating a spacious suburban character and appearance which can be experienced from both Lakenham Way and sections of Hall Road. 7. The frontage of the appeal site is currently occupied by large advertisement billboards and a timber fence structure.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision The Billboards and supporting structure create a somewhat stark boundary being sited parallel and close to the road at broadly comparable height to the nearest dwellings on this side of Hall Road. However, the incongruity of the billboards is lessened by their thin form to the side, which allows for views behind them along Hall Road. Additionally, the gap between the billboards and the nearest dwelling gives them a detached appearance, further reducing their impact on the streetscene. 8. Nonetheless, there is no dispute between the parties that the removal of the billboards would have a positive effect on the street scene and from my observations, I find no reason to disagree. 9. Whilst the proposed building would be set below the existing road level, similar to nearby properties, it would be taller, significantly wider, and deeper than other buildings on this section of Hall Road. However, the proposed building would be set forward of the established building line on Hall Road and also closer to the neighbouring property than the billboards.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Despite the proposed building occupying a similar position to the road, it would be substantially more prominent than the slender form of the billboards, which from many viewpoints, allow for views of the existing dwellings, which are modestly sized within their respective plots and onto Lakenham Way. As such, its uncomplimentary design does not reflect the built form found nearby. 10. Whilst brick and render are proposed that would be in keeping with materials found nearby, they would, along with the recessed frontage, not sufficiently break up the long bland frontage, which would be more apparent given its position forward of existing dwellings on this side of Hall Road. Furthermore, whilst the hipped roof would assist in reducing some of the massing of the building, the additional height and width are at odds with the prevailing detached and semi-detached properties on this section of the road. As such, it would appear as a discordant feature within the streetscene. Indeed, this effect https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/G2625/W/22/3292590 is clearly demonstrated in the CGI images provided within the appellant’s statement2. 11. The stepped roof design to the rear appears intended to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development when viewed from the side and rear. However, the appeal site sits within a prominent position close to the railway bridge and elevated from Lakenham Way. Despite the hipped roofs and stepped design, the proposal’s height and very large footprint would create a bulky and visually awkward building. The side and rear elevations would be highly visible in views from Hall Road and Lakenham Way and would be expansive with very few features to soften their appearance. 12. The proposal would be sited on an under-utilised parcel of land within a built- up area. However, I find that the proportion of the site which would be covered by built form would create a cramped form of development which is indicative of overdevelopment. It would, therefore, not represent an efficient use of the land to accord with the provisions of the Framework or represent an appropriate density as required by Policy DM12 of the Norwich local plan Development management policies plan (NLP). 13.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision As I have identified above, the railway bridge is an NDHA. Its significance is largely derived from its architectural appearance and prominent position located on Hall Road and above Lakenham Way. Paragraph 203 of the Framework advises that the effect of an application on the significance of an NDHA should be taken into account and that where applications directly or indirectly affect NDHAs, a balanced judgement will be required to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 14. The Council have raised concerns about the proposal having an impact on the structural integrity of the bridge and I deal with this matter further below. However, in regard to any visual impact on the NDHA, I consider the removal of the billboards sited close to the bridge for the low-level bin store would allow for more improved views over the current arrangement. As such, I consider the proposed scheme would not substantially alter, in a detrimental way, the way in which the NDHA is perceived and experienced. 15. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the NDHA.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision However, a building of this size in this location would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the wider area. I therefore find that it would conflict with Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (JCS) and Policies DM3, DM12 and DM13 of the NLP. Together these seek, amongst other things, that development is designed to the highest possible standards and responds to the character and local distinctiveness of the area. The proposed development is also contrary to the Framework, which amongst other matters, requires the development to be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, and layout. Living Conditions – Future Occupiers 16. The proposal would include outdoor amenity space to the rear for four of the apartments, with non-being provided for the other two remaining apartments. I have not been referred to any quantitative standards for outdoor amenity space. Nevertheless, while appreciating that not everyone may desire a large 2 Appendix G1 North West Elevation Proposed https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/G2625/W/22/3292590 outdoor private space, the provision of a satisfactorily sized area of useable private space is important to enable onsite recreational activity and for other outdoor requirements such as drying clothes. 17. For those apartments that did benefit from the outdoor amenity area this would be very small, with limited space to accommodate typical private door activities. This would be exacerbated by its triangular shape, which would greatly limit the use that it could be put to, therefore not providing satisfactory private outdoor amenity space. While the internal living arrangements would be acceptable and as would access to Lakenham Way, this would not mitigate the inadequate outdoor amenity space provision. 18. As a consequence of the siting of the proposal and location of windows, the development would see secondary living space windows and bedroom windows sited in close proximity to the adjacent property. I am mindful that in urban locations, housing can be much denser.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision In this instance, a short gap between the boundary and adjacent dwelling would be, in my view, sufficient to allow adequate natural light and outlook into and out from these rooms, particularly as the bedrooms are likely to be used less frequently. 19. Overall, the proximity to the boundary and adjacent dwelling would not be likely to have an overbearing effect on outlook from habitable rooms of the proposed building or result in an unacceptable level of overshadowing. However, the position of windows on the upper floor facing the existing first- floor window at No 95 Hall Road would allow for views directly into these bedrooms and therefore a loss of privacy for future residents. This loss of privacy would unlikely occur at ground floor levels, given the height and position of the proposed boundary treatments. 20. As such, the proposed development would, not result in a harmful effect on outlook or through overshadowing. Nevertheless, it would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to privacy and private outdoor amenity. It would fail to accord with Policies DM2 and DM13 of the NLP.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Together these seek, amongst other things, that new development achieves a high standard of amenity and living conditions for future residents. In addition, it would be contrary to the Framework, where it seeks to achieve a high standard of amenity for future users. 21. As Policy 2 of the JCS and Policy DM3 principally relate to good design, I find no overall conflict with these policies in terms of providing satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. Living Conditions – Existing Occupiers 22. Given the gap between No 95 and the proposed building, there would be a similar level of overshadowing which would in my view, be minor and not unacceptable. However, given the additional height and length, the proposed building would not only dominate views out of these side windows at No 95 it would also have an enclosing effect along the flank wall and partially to the front and rear of the property. There would be little relief from the development in the outlook from within the rooms facing the appeal building, which would be restricted and uninviting. Additionally, it would be overbearing for the occupiers of No 95. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/G2625/W/22/3292590 23. Based on my observations with regard to unacceptable privacy levels at first floor level for future occupants, this same unacceptable level would occur for existing occupiers at No 95. 24. Having considered the relationship between the proposed building and No 95 with regards to overlooking, I find that the perception of being overlooked would, subject to the proposed screening, be no more harmful than what is currently experienced from the adjoining property. I therefore find no harm in this regard. Furthermore, the rear garden would still retain acceptable outward views for existing occupiers given its length, width and distance from the proposed building. 25. For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No 95 Hall Road. It would fail to accord with Policies DM2 and DM13 of the NLP. Together these seek, amongst other things, that new development achieves a high standard of amenity and living conditions for existing residents. In addition, it would be contrary to the Framework, where it seeks to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing users. 26.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision As Policy 2 of the JCS and Policies DM3 and DM12 of the NLP principally relate to good design and principles of residential development, I find no overall conflict with these policies in terms of providing satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. Biodiversity 27. Policy DM6 of the NLP states development will be expected to take all reasonable opportunities to avoid harm to and protect and enhance the natural environment of Norwich and its setting. 28. The appellant’s Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Survey (PEA) identifies that the proposed development could have an impact on breeding birds, reptiles, badger and hedgehog habitat and makes a recommendation to mitigate harm during construction. The PEA also highlights that the nearby area is dominated by residential dwellings with their associated garden areas that could be utilised by several protected species. Additionally, it identifies there are small, scattered woodland copses and tree lines around the area, which could be used for foraging and commuting. Therefore, based on this evidence, I find that the site forms part of an environmental asset for the purposes of Policy 1 of the JCS. 29.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision The PEA recommends a number of enhancements that the appellant considers can be addressed through an appropriately worded condition. However, I have already established that a substantial area of the site is to be developed. From the evidence before me, the appellant has not provided information on how these enhancements can be fully incorporated into the limited remaining area of the site not to be developed. Without robust evidence, I cannot be confident that development could be carried out in this location without adversely affecting the site which forms part of an environmental asset. 30. Given this uncertainty and that I am not satisfied that it would in this case, be appropriate to defer consideration of this matter to a planning condition. 31. Accordingly, I am unable to conclude that the proposal would not result in harm to the environmental asset. I find that the proposal would conflict with https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/G2625/W/22/3292590 Policy 1 of the JCS and Policy DM6 of the NLP. It would also conflict with paragraph 174 of the Framework which seeks, amongst other things, to protect sites of biodiversity. 32. Policy 2 of the JCS seeks to avoid harmful impacts on key environmental assets and, in particular, SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites. Based on the limited evidence before me, I do not find that the appeal site form part of a key asset and therefore find no conflict with Policy 2. Land Stability 33. The Council’s case on this main issue is that a land stability risk has been identified, and a retaining wall would likely be required. As such, these details are required prior to determination, particularly as any work could harm the structural integrity of the NDHA railway bridge. 34. The appellant as part of the application, provided a Phase 1 desk study3. The report identified that a site walkover was undertaken, and amongst other things, the report could not discount the risk of slope instability occurring on the site. The study also highlights there may be a need for retaining walls. 35.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Policy DM11 of the NLP states that when best available evidence shows that the viability of development could be affected by serious and exceptional risk of ground instability, the developer is required to show that they have investigated and taken account of such risk by identifying appropriate design elements, exceptional engineering works or other mitigation measures. 36. On the basis of the information before me, including the statement provided by the engineer, I am satisfied that the issue of land stability is low risk. Therefore land stability and ground conditions for retaining walls could be addressed by appropriately worded planning conditions. Such conditions would be capable of meeting the six tests of Planning Practice Guidance and would adequately address the concerns of the Council, ensuring no adverse effect with regard to land stability and structural integrity of nearby infrastructure, including the NDHA. 37. For the reasons given, subject to an appropriately worded condition, the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on land stability or nearby infrastructure.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision As such, it would comply with Policy DM11 of the NLP and paragraph 183 of the Framework, which together seek to ensure proposals take account of land instability risks and ground conditions. Other Matters 38. Since the application was refused, matters related to nutrient pollution and natural habitat disturbance have been raised. The appellant has advocated that should the appeal be allowed that the decision be delayed so this matter can be dealt with. However, I did not undertake any further assessment or seek any further views from the parties because the appeal is failing for other reasons. Also, addressing these matters could have at best only led to any potential adverse effects being potentially mitigated, thus making them neutral considerations that could not have affected any planning balances one way or the other. 3 Project Ref: P9825 Date: September 2021 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/G2625/W/22/3292590 39. In reaching my decision, I have had regard to the fact that the appeal site is an accessible location with access to transport links and shops and is currently underutilised. Additionally, the development would offer potential benefits in terms of providing six new residential units to the Council’s housing stock. 40. It would also have environmental and economic benefits through, the removal of the unkept billboards, employment opportunities during the construction phase of the development, and spending in the local area by future occupants. I have attached some weight to these factors. However, given the small scale of the development, the weight attributable to these matters is limited and is not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified and the conflict with the policies I have referred to. 41. The appellant highlights that no objections have been received from the neighbours. However, a lack of objection does not lead me to a different conclusion on the main issues of the appeal. 42. My attention has been drawn to application ref: 19/00951/F, approved by the Council.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — Appeal Decision From the limited details supplied, the approved development is related to the conversion and extension of an existing locally listed building in a high- density area of the city centre. Given these differences, I cannot draw any comparisons which weigh in favour of the proposal and have given this little weight. In any event, I have considered this appeal on its own merits in light of the evidence before me. Conclusion 43. The proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. 44. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.

Land adjacent to 95 Hall Road, Norwich — Norwich City Council — A Hickey INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7