Historic Norwich home is spared demolition
PUBLISHED: 16:18 14 May 2018 | UPDATED: 19:44 14 May 2018
A building familiar to the thousands of football fans who pass it on their way to watch Norwich City play at Carrow Road has been spared demolition.
The Carrow Bridge House, which has stood next to Carrow Bridge since the 1920s, had been earmarked to be knocked down by Norfolk County Council.
But planning officers at Norwich City Council have refused to allow demolition.
City Hall’s own design and conservation officer, Christopher Brownhill, had objected.
He said it would cause harm to the wider conservation area, which includes the medieval Boom Tower on the opposite side of the river.
He said: “Carrow Bridge House has the potential to offer aesthetic, historic and social value of local significance and should therefore be considered as an undesignated heritage asset.
“I do not believe that the current application has made a thorough enough assessment of the potential for ‘harm’ to the wider setting which is a conservation area and has not identified public benefit.”
Historic England had also objected to the loss of Norwich’s only ‘bridge house’ on similar grounds, saying not enough information had been provided to properly assess the impact of demolition.
The Environment Agency objected because of the lack of a flood risk assessment, while Tim Mellors, the city council’s natural areas officer objected due to the lack of an ecological assessment.
He said the river was a “significant feeding” corridor and there could be bats in the house.
The county council’s property company NPS group had sought demolition, saying the building was unsafe and it would cost too much to bring it back into use as a home.
Reginald Dann, who had lived in the property for more than 50 years, was moved out to alternative accommodation last year.
But, in turning down demolition permission, officers at Norwich City Council said: “The house appears serviceable, having been vacated only 12 months ago, and it remains the responsibility of the applicant to secure the site during a period of vacancy.”
County Hall had proposed landscaping the area, but there were no specific proposals to redevelop the site.