Inspector will decide if council was wrong to say no to flats on former pub site

PUBLISHED: 06:47 26 May 2019 | UPDATED: 06:47 26 May 2019

The site of the former Shoemaker pub. The section related to the appeal is in the top right corner. Pic: Google Street View.

The site of the former Shoemaker pub. The section related to the appeal is in the top right corner. Pic: Google Street View.

Google Street View

The question of whether new flats can be built on the former site of a Norwich pub is in the hands of a planning inspector.

The Shoemaker pub was demolished in 2012 . Pic: Archant Library.The Shoemaker pub was demolished in 2012 . Pic: Archant Library.

The Shoemaker pub, in Earlham West Centre, closed in 2005 and was eventually demolished in 2012.

After years of the site becoming a magnet for vandalism and fly-tipping, Norwich City Council agreed, four years ago, to grant Pulham Market-based Manorlake Properties permission to build student flats on the site.

The developer built those flats, with a total of 70 bedrooms for students.

But on another part of the site, they sought permission from City Hall for a further 18 flats, with 23 bedrooms, along with a refuse compound.

But, in September last year, planning officers at City Hall used their powers to refuse to grant permission for that part of the scheme.

You may also want to watch:

Among the reasons for rejection were that: at four storeys, the height of the building was not acceptable; some of the rooms did not comply with minimum space standards and that the development made no provision for affordable housing either on-site, or by making a financial contribution to provide it elsewhere.

The applicants objected and a planning inspector is now considering the appeal, via written representations.

The developer and the council are at odds over the classification of the development.

Student halls of residence are known as C2 use, but the council sees what is proposed at the Enfield Road site as C3 development - which has certain minimum space requirements and a requirement for affordable housing provision.

In its letter to the planning inspectorate, the city council urges the inspector to dismiss the appeal, saying: "The form of development proposed is materially different to that provided in the existing development and to student accommodation more generally."

But, in their submission, the developers insist the development should not be classed as C3 and the second phase of the development should be treated no differently to the first phase.

They say it would "provide satisfactory living conditions" for the proposed occupants.

The planning inspector will make a decision over the scheme in due course.

If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Eastern Daily Press. Click the link in the yellow box below for details.

Become a supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years, through good times and bad, serving as your advocate and trusted source of local information. Our industry is facing testing times, which is why I’m asking for your support. Every single contribution will help us continue to produce award-winning local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Thank you.

Most Read

Most Read

Latest from the Eastern Daily Press