BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

APPEAL BY: Quantum Land (Brundall) Ltd against the refusal of Broadland District Council to grant outline planning permission with the details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for later determination, with the exception of Phase 1 for which details of all matters in relation to the 23 dwellings within that Phase are provided. Development to comprise: up to 170 dwellings (Use Class C3), and a community/sports pavilion (Class D1 and D2 use), a country park, formal and/or informal outdoor sports provision, access, and other earthworks and engineering works. All development, works and operations to be in accordance with the Development Parameters Schedule and Plans.

PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/K2610/W/19/3239986

LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REFERENCE: 20171386

Rebuttal to Martin Taylor’s Proof of Evidence

Paul Harris BSc, MA, PG DIP (Urban Design and Placemaking)

Place Shaping Manager

South Norfolk and Broadland District Councils

September 2020

Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This rebuttal responds to Martin Taylor’s Proof of Evidence. The rebuttal directly addresses the elements of the Martin Taylor’s Proof of Evidence which relate to the Matters Not Agreed within the Statement of Common Ground.

1.2 Specifically, this rebuttal deals with the following issues:

 The deliverability of specific sites of 10 or more homes

 The deliverabilty of small sites of 9 or fewer homes

 Student Accommodation

 The credibility of the assessment of supply from Windfall development.

 The Government consultation: Changes to the current planning system

1.3 I have not sought to rebut each and every point in the appellant’s evidence with which I disagree. The fact that I do not expressly rebut a point should be taken as indicating that I accept it. My conclusion at section 7 can be read as a summary of this rebuttal.

2.0 Specific Sites

2.1 The appellant has raised concerns about the deliverability of 40 specific sites of 10 or more homes alongside making general criticisms of the approach taken in compiling the Joint Delivery Statements with site promoters, agents and developers.

2.2 In respect of the appellant’s criticisms of the Joint Delivery Statements agreed with developers, I would make the following points:

1. Whilst some of the statements may have been drafted by the Local Planning Authority (LPA), this was based on engagement between the LPA and developers concerned and accurately reflect their delivery intentions, anticipated start dates and build-out rates. The printed name, position and date reflect the person with who and the date on which the statement was agreed with the developer. In agreeing to have their name printed on the statement and that it be published they also agreed to the Developer declaration set out in the Joint Delivery Statement. In no circumstances have Joint Delivery Statements been included where they were not formally agreed by the persons stated on the form. As such the forms should be considered a true reflection of the developer’s intentions. I see no reason to conclude that developers, who are almost entirely of professional standing, would knowingly sign-off a document which they knew would be placed in the public domain that they considered to be inaccurate.

2. The delivery intentions agreed by the developers of the sites were reflected within the trajectory without adjustment on the basis that this was considered the best available information, it drew directly on the developer’s detailed understanding of the site, its particular challenges and the developer’s own view of the time within which milestones and development would be achieved. In my view it is entirely reasonable, and consistent with the NPPF test of “realistic prospect” to use the developers’ specific knowledge and intentions of their site, their intentions in term of submitting applications and discharging conditions (whether stated or implicit in relation to a proposed delivery trajectory) and their understanding of the performanace of the sales of their product, or the product likely to be delivery on their site, in local market conditions. Whilst using average benchmarks may in certain circumstances be useful, they will be their nature not reflect any one developer’s specific intentions, which is what will ultimately dictate the rate at which milstones are acheived. The Joint Delivery Statements are a true reflection of the developer’s intention and expectations at the time at which they were agreed.

2.3 I have addressed the appellant’s conclusions on large sites in my appendix 1. In setting out my response to the appellant’s conclusions of I have been mindful of the conclusions of the planning inspector in the Land off Maldon Road (LPA: Colchester BC) (Ref.3248038) (CD6.18). Specifically, the inspector’s conclusions at paragraph 27 that there is no requirement for absolute certainty that development will occur within the 5 year peiod and that “it would not be realistic to interpret the relevant guidance as seeking that level of proof”. I also agree with the inspector’s conclusion at paragraph 23 that the overarching test of deliverability is that “sites should be available, suitable and achievable with a realistic prospect of housing being delivered within five years”. Where appropriate, I have included additional documentation in my appendix 3 in support of some of my conclusions.

2.4 I also note at paragraph 54 that the inspector in Maldon Road draws a clear distinction between delivery and deliverabilty. I think it is important to bear this distinction in mind when considering Mr Taylor’s evidence from “Start to Finish”. This evidence is clearly focused on when homes have actually been delivered, based on an average of the sites considered. The time at which delivery was actually achieved may well be different from what was considered realistic at the time a 5 year land supply calculation was carrid out, this is entirely consistent with the NPPF definition of deliverable.

2.5 I also consider the review completed by Martin Taylor to be somewhat partial. He states at paragraph 7.4 that he has underataken a review of the GNAs housing supply from large sites. It appears that the review has focused soley on the question of whether any of the sites listed in the Council’s Housing 2019 Land Supply Assessment1 (“2019 HLSA”) should be discounted or removed from the supply. A fair and balanced review would also need to consider whether there is now evidence that sites within the 5 year period may deliver more homes or if sites clearly identified within the statement as delivering shortly after the 5 year period should now be moved within it. I have set out in my appendix 2 those sites identified as commitment in the 2019 HLSA where I consider that there is now clear evidence that there is a reaslistic prospect that an increased number of homes will be delivered or that homes will now be delivered in the five year period when previously the site were shown to deliver outside of it.

2.6 In respect of my appendix 2, I do not consider that I am in conflict with the intent of previous Inspectors’ decision on the acceptability of evidence provided after the base date of the assessment. Many of these decision being neatly summarised in the Woburn Sands decision (CD 6.6). Whilst the decision refers to sites identified as “deliverable” at the base date of the study, I consider this should reasonably extend to sites the sites I have identified. I draw this conclusion because my reading of previous criticisms relate to the introduction of additional sites which had not previously been identified and therefore assessed; the argument being that it would

1 CD8.22 not be appropriate to add these in because that would skew the base date of the assessment. My appendix 2 only includes upto date evidence on sites that were explicitly listed as part of the Council’s overall housing commitment within the 2019 HLSA and which are now expected to delivery more than previously thought or were shown to be delivering only shortly outside the 5 year period i.e. they are not new sites. I consider this no different to considering additional and more recent evidence that either confirms, or contradicts the evidence provided when the 2019 HLSA was published.

2.7 The appellant’s view is that the Council’s supply from large sites should be reduced by 2,476 homes. Based upon my review of large sites I conclude that the supply from large sites should be reduced by only 620 homes. This is made up of a reduction of 1,059 homes from sites disuputed by the appellant (appendix 1) and in increase of 439 from sites identified within the land supply assessment where there is now clear evidence that they will deliver more quickly than was previously thought (appendix 2).

3.0 Small sites of 9 homes or fewer 3.1 The NPPF definition of deliverability states that sites which do not involve major development and have planning permission, should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that homes will not be delivered within five years (for example because they are no longer viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans).

3.2 The starting point therefore is that all sites of 9 or fewer dwellings are deliverable. In order to account for smaller sites that will not be delivered within 5 years then Council then applies a 27% discount to account for sites that would not be expected to delivered within 5 years. Whilst the appellant has criticised the Council for not using more recent evidence, using the evidence from the period considered by the Council has allows for a more accurate assessment of of the number of sites that are subject to a replacement permission, or started but not built out within a 5 year period. It is also notable that the information for Norwich covered the period that overlapped the global financial crisis in 2008. Broadland and South Norfolk’s information covered the period shortly after the global financial crisis, and whilst the housing market was still recovering from its effects. Therefore, I do not see any clear reason to conclude that more recent lapse, replacement or non-implementation rates would be higher than those assessed by the Council.

3.3 It is important to note that the 27% discount rate applied to small sites does not just cover those sites that lapse, it also includes sites which are started but not completed within 5 years. The rate of permissions lapsing or being replaced or renewed is actually the significantly lower figures of between 15.7% and 21.7%. Under the NPPF definition sites which have started and therefore become extant would continue to be considered deliverable. Using the Council’s approach those sites would in fact be discounted from the forecast, therefore the Council’s approach is more prudent than the NPPF requires.

3.4 Moreover, the actual number of permissions that will have lapsed in any one year would undoubtedly be much lower than would result from the applications of the Council’s annualised percentage discount across all its commitment. Many of these sites would not lapse until much later in the 5 year period. The evidence in Appendix D2 of the Council’s 2019 HLSA illustrates that between 78.5% and 84.3% of development is either completed or implemented within 5 years. It is also notable that the discount applied is set at the higher end of the range across the whole area, the actual evidence of lapse/non-implementation and in Broadland is 23%.

3.5 As such it is my view that the Council’s approach is actually very cautious and in all likelihood applies a higher discount that reduces the deliverable supply of small sites below that which is required by the NPPF definition of deliverability. Therefore I do not agree with the appellant’s point at 7.21 of his statement, there is no need for the inspector to take a more cautious approach as the Council has already taken a very cautious approach.

3.6 The appellant also suggests that the Council should perhaps apply a higher discount to be consistent with its more cautious approach to discounting windfall i.e. by 33%. If anything the available evidence suggests that the discount applied to the windfall housing is actually too high. The windfall assessment for Broadland and South Norfolk only considers sites of 9 or fewer, therefore the only evidential review (which is the one provided by the Council) suggests that the actual lapse rate is between 15.7% and 21.5%. The fact the the Council has retained a higher discount for windfall only reflects the cautious approach that the Council has sought to take in regards to the supply of windfall.

3.7 The appellant criticises the Council for not publishing its data on small sites. It is in fact the case that South Norfolk publishes a residential land availability (RLA) statement, Norwich and Broadland are happy to provide details of its smaller sites on request. To the best of my knowledge, in this instance, despite the Council publishing its statement, and notifying the appellant of its publication, in February and the appellant setting out it intended to change its position and challenge the Council’s land supply statement on 7th July no request has been made for this information. If it had been the appellant would have been pointed towards the South Norfolk RLA and provided with the Broadland and Norwich information for review. For the sake of convenience a schedule of small sites in Broadland and Norwich are set out as my appendix 4. The South Norfolk’s published RLA has been provided as a separate volume. It should be noted that the Norwich information indicates that the small sites commitment in should have been recorded as 304, not 307. Due to the 27% discount applied this makes no difference to the annualised delivery totals for Norwich.

3.8 For the reasons set out above it is considered that the Council’s approach to small sites is robust and credible and there is no need to apply a further discount. And therefore the small sites contribution of 1,180 homes to the 2019 HLSA should continue to be included in full.

4.0 Student Accommodation 4.1 I accept the appellant’s proposed modification to the Student accommodation multiplier. Based upon my calculations, and taking account of the net reductions to to the loss of homes as part of redevelopment I assess this has the effect of reduction supply by 50 homes. My appendix 1 sets out my specific conclusions in respect of sites that involved the development of student accommodation. This reduction is taken account of in my overall conclusions on the justifiable reduction in supply from larger sites as set out in paragraph 2.7 above.

5.0 Windfall

5.1 In my view, the Council has taken a very cautious approach to the assessment of windfall. To achieve this it has undertaken a trend based assessment over the course of between 9 (in the case of Broadland) and 10 years (in the case of South Norfolk and Norwich). This is a substantial period that includes the period in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 global financial crash. Given the extensive period considered I do not consider the absence of information from a single year in South Norfolk and Norwich, or two years in Broadland can reasonably be considered to undermine the information or indicate that it is some way out-of-date.

5.2 It should be noted that overall completions in Broadland were higher in Broadland in 17/18 and 18/19 than in the previous years and Norwich recorded by far its largest completions in 18/19. Indeed in 18/19 Norwich was reported as being one of the areas that, nationally, recorded one of the largest number of completions from prior notification office conversions.

5.3 The appellant also makes a point of criticising the evidence by way of suggesting the last year was the lowest year of completions in Broadland and South Norfolk. A fair reading of the assessment shows clearly that previous lows have been following by increasing completions and peaks therefore I don’t consider this to be a particularly meaningful trend.

5.4 It is also important to note that for Broadland and South Norfolk this analysis excludes sites of 10 or more homes. This reflects both the prudence of the Councils’ approach and ensures that the analysis does not take account of larger sites outside of defined settlement boundaries, which have been less likely to occur due to the existence of a housing land supply. This has been undertaken in recognition of this likely future trend. Given that the assessment covers only small sites, extensive consideration of a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assesmsent, locally referred to as a Housing and Economic Land Availabilty Assessment (HELAA), would have been of limited value. I take this view because due to the size threshold for site assessment, the HELAA would be unlikely to consider many of the site that would contribute to windfall delivery within the assessment. Also, the HELAA only reflects land promoted for development, and again this would be of limited relevance to small sites within defined settlement limits given the in principal acceptance of suitablilty of redevelopment in these areas.

5.5 Moreover, the delivery average used to inform the figure included in the 2019 HLSA across all geographical areas discounts garden land development. Across Broadland and South Norfolk development on garden land has been not only consistent, but also the consistently largest source of windfall development and, given that there are circa. 120,0002 homes across Broadland and South Norfolk it is likely to be a significant source of supply.

5.6 As identified by the appellant, the annual average is then discounted by 33% again as a predent measure to avoid over-estimating supply. This supply is then applied on the basis of a stepped trajectory. The appellant criticises the application of any windfall in year 2 of the assessment. Windfall will of course include sites permitted soon after the basedate of the study and then have up to the end of year 2 to be implemented. This is equivalent to nearly a two year period, which is not unreasonable for small sites, simple conversion or removal of occupancy restrictions. It is also worth considering what this actualy means in numerical terms. Using Broadland as an example the annual delivery of small sites windfall is demonstrated in the assessment as being 61, or 91 including garden land, units per year. Of these 13 units are assumed in year two. This is equivalent to between 14% and 21% of the annual average i.e. a very low contribution.

5.7 To consider the wider prudence of the Council’s approach across the whole of the 5 year period, if the average delivery from sources excluding garden land is calculated over a five year period the total delivery would be 1,720 dwellings3. If the figures including garden land were to be include it would be the even higher figure of 2,0804. In actual fact due to the discounting applied and phased application of windfall to the land supply trajectory only 681 units are included. This is equivalent to only 40% of the long term average excluded garden land, or 33% of the long term real average delivery including garden land. In my view, the very small overall percentage assumed negates any realisitic prospect of double counting particularly

2 MHCLG, Table 100: number of dwellings by tenure and district, England 3 annual delivery of SNC at 98 + BDC at 61 + NRW at 185, multiplied by 5 years =1,720 homes 4 annual delivery of SNC at 131 + BDC at 92 +NRW at 193 = 416, multiplied by 5 years = 2,080 homes given the discount applied to committed small sites, which as explained above likely excludeds more sites that are actually required by the NPPF.

5.8 As a general observation, given the ongoing changes to permitted development rights allowing ever greater potential for conversion of buildings to non-residential it is hard to conceive that the supply of homes from windfall development is likely to be lower in the future than over the assessment period within the HLS statement.

5.9 In conclusion, given the long term delivery analysis undertaken, the exclusion of major sites from that analysis in Broadland and South Norfolk, the exclusion of supply from garden land across all sources and the discounting and step introduction included in applying the windall I do not considered that it can reasonably be concluded that the Council has not provided compelling evidence that this level of windfall should be included within the trajectory. Indeed, if anything the compelling trend based assessment indicates that the Council underestimates supply from this source. Therefore, in my view the entirety of the 681 units of windfall should be included

6.0 Government Consulation: Changes to the current planning system

6.1 The thrust of the appellant’s argument is that government’s proposed changes to the standard methodology are likely to be brought into force in the short term, and that against the new methodology the Council would not be able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

6.2 Government’s proposed changes are of course currently being consulted upon and may be subject to change. It is a matter of common ground the the current land supply position should be calculated against the combined local housing need figure of 2,024 homes. Therefore I do not consider this that potential future changes to the local housing need calculation are material to determining the current five year housing land supply position.

6.3 It is notable that the Government’s recently published white paper “Planning for the Future” (CD 9.3) proposes the removal of the five year housing land supply calculation5. The principle being that if enough available land is released then it will not be a barrier to enough homes being built. As set out paragraph 4.1 of my proof

5 Para 2.27 of evidence, as of 1 April 2019 Greater Norwich maintained a housing commitment of 33,270 homes. This is 16.4 times the current local housing need6 and 10.2 times the revised standard methodogy7. More land is to be made available through the ongoing review of the Local Plan. The availability of land is not a barrier to the delivery of enough homes in Greater Norwich.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 Having reviewed the appellant’s proof of evidence I draw the following conclusions:

 On review I accept that, taking account progress since publication of the assessment, there is a justifiable reduction in the land supply from large sites of 10 or more (appendix 1). However, I consider that the appellant has overestimated the scale of this reduction and that the actual reduction should be 1,059 homes not the 2,476 estimated by the appellant.

 From a further review of progress on sites identified in the land supply assessment, I consider there to be a justifiable increase in supply of 439 (Appendix 2) homes from sites indetified within the housing land supply assessment.

 I consider that all of the small sites of 9 or fewer dwellings should be considered deliverable at the basedate of the assessment. The application of a 27% reduction for non-implementation or lapse within 5 years is a credible assessment that, if anything, leads to a discount beyond that required by the NPPF definition of deliverabilty. Therefore I do not consider there is any justification for a reduction in the assessment of supply from small sites.

 I accept the appellant’s proposed multiplier for student accommodation, although I do not always consider that this has been applied correctly to student accommodation developments. I have also considered supply from student accommodation in appendix 1 and have taken it into account in calculating the overall reduction in supply from large sites.

6 2,024 homes per year 7 3,256 homes per year  The Council’s assessment of the deliverable supply result from windfall development is cautious. The assessment covers the an extensive period of time and excludes potential supply from sites of 10 or more in Broadland and South Norfolk and garden land development across all geographies. The annual averages are then applied with a 33% discount and applied on a stepped basis. The extensive period over which the assessment of windfall has been undertaken and prudence in discount provides the compelling evidence of the level of deliverable supply from windfall. I therefore consider that there is no justification to remove the windfall supply from the Council’s calculation of housing land supply.

 It is a matter of common ground that the 5 year housing land supply should be calculated against the current local housing need. Potential revisions to the standard methodology following the Government’s consultation are not material to the calculation of a 5 year housing land supply at this time.

7.2 On the basis of the above I consider the Council’s revised housing land supply position to be as follows:

GNA revised position (appendix 1 GNA revised position (appendix 1 sites only) & 2 sites) Basic five-year requirement 2,024 2,024 Shortfall / Surplus n/a n/a Buffer 5% 5% Total five year requirement 10,627 10,627 Deliverable Supply 11,467 11,906 (-1,059) (-620) Years Supply 5.40 years 5.60 Years Surplus / Shortfall +840 +1,279

Appendix 1 – Deliverability Rebuttal

+ or – differences shown are relative to the Council’s original housing land supply delivery forecast.

Litchfield Site Name Permission Council’s Comments Reference Reference B1 Former Piggeries, Manor 20150262 I accept that the status of the site is currently unclear, given the identified uncertainties about whether a Farm, Yarmouth Road, lawful start has been made on the site. As such, I accept the appellants position in respect of this site. Blofield, Norwich NR13 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 4JS 0 0 0 0 0 0 -13

B2 Land at Jordan’s COL2 As is clear from the Joint Delivery Statement there remains a committed landowner who has engaged Scrapyard professional agents to carry out site surevys prior to engaging a developer to bring forward the site. The professional agents for the site, with their specific knowledge of the site and local activity concluded that it was a realisitic possibility that all of the site would be built out within the 5 year period. In reality the Council only considered 10 units of the scheme to be deliverable.

Whilst, based on the above, I still consider there to be a realistic prospect of housing being delivered within 5 years I am, in this instance, prepared to accept the appellants amendment. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10 B3 Land West of Burlingham 20161643 At the time of publication of the land supply statement an in principle agreement had been reached over Road, South Walsham, the purchase price of land needed to access the site. Therefore, at that time it was reasonable to conclude Norwich, NR13 6DN that the site was suitable, available and deliverable in line with the Joint Delivery Statement. I now understand that the ownership of the access has changed and re-negotiations are taking place. Whilst I still think it likely that this small development within an attractive Broadland village will take place within the next 5 years, due to the uncertainty over the access I do not intend to challenge the appellant’s conclusions on this site. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -21 B4 Land to the North of 20161058 I accept that there is no longer a reasonable prospect that delivery in accordance with the statement Sprowston and Old published in February will be achieved. Nonetheless, I do not take the view that this means that there is Catton, Btn Wroxham no realistic prospect that housing completions will being on site within five years. As the appellant Road and St Faiths Road. correctly identifies a S.73 application was approved on 22-12-17. Whilst there has been a delay to the Norwich P1 agreement of strategic reserve matters, largely linked to additional site investigation works connected to a drainage scheme. The necessary site investigations works were carried out in late 2019, although they were to some extent delayed to to weather and then with the subsequent technical assessment of information. Nonetheless, this additional work has has now been completed and was submitted to the Council in July 2019 and is currently under consideration with the Lead Local Flood Authority.

I am surprised that the appellant has questioned how the site will be delivered or home many homes are included in phase 1, this detail has been explicitly set out in the Joint Delivery Statement. For the sake of brevity I will not repeat the content of the statement in detail however in summary: phase 1 comprises circa 733 homes that comprises three separate parcels of land; an in-principle agreement has been reached with the landowners to acquire the site; development funding for strategic infrastructure has been secured; under the current investors model once pre-sale are agreed with developer (there has been engagement with multiple developers to take on different parts of phase 1) the investor would deliver the strategic enabling infrastructure with land being released simultaneously across multiple parcels. Whilst as far as I am aware no formal agreement has been reached with prospective developers, I am aware that discussions have been had with potential housebuilding partners as set out in the Joint Delivery Statement. On this basis I disagree with the appellant that there is no clear evidence that means that there is a realistic prospect of housing completions will being on site within 5 years. It is absolutely clear that substantial work has been undertaken and a delivery model established.

Whilst the appellant questions whether the unsuccessful HIF funding bid bring the delivery of phase 1 into question. Phase 1 of the site can be delivered completely independently of phases 2 and 3 of the site, this was one of the specific outcomes of the S.73 application specifically allowed this to be achieved. The HIF application did not relate to phase one and the absence of HIF funding should will not effect the deliverabilty of Phase 1.

The appellant points to evidence from the document “start to finish (2nd edition)” to support their assertion that it is not reasonable to determine that development can be delivered on site within this 5 year period. Specifically using the average figure of 8.4 years to first completion from validation of the application and 2.3 years from gaining planning approval to completion of the first dwelling. I believe these to have been taken from table 4, found on page 6 of the document. Whilst I do not question that the averages in “start to finish” are accurate based on the samples considered, although I have not seen this detail, I would compare this data with that contatined in table 3, which indicates an average of 2.9 years (a median of 2.5) from gaining outline permission to the completion of the first dwelling. This is almost equivalent to the entire lead-in time shown in table 4. If the Beeston Park site is benchmarked against the information in this table 3 rather than table 4 then first completions could reasonably have been expected by the end of 2020. It would therefore appear to me that the benchmarking exercise undertaken by the appellants is not necessarily accurate for all sites. This might include sites where the details and conditions around strategic infrastructure, including roads and drainage are already being dealt with, which in my view indicates that a lesser lead-in time is likely to be needed on this site, when compared to other strategic sites.

Despite the delay in finalising approval for strategic infrastructure, for the reasons set out above I still consider there to be clear evidence that there is a reaslistic prospect that housing will be delivered within 5 years. I consider a cautious estimate would be first completions at the end of 22/23 allowing 2 years for finalisation of sales to housebuilders, approval of reserve matters and discharge of conditions. As show plans are in place for strategic enabling infrastructure to be delivered ahead of this date. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 25 125 150 - 300 B5 Land South of Salhouse 20160498 Whilst I agree there may be a slight delay in delivery given that development has not yet begun on site, I Road, Sprowston, do not consider that the scale of the reduction proposed by the appellant is represents what are Norwich P1 realistically be expected to deliver on site. In respect of the forecast included in the Joint Delivery Statement it should be noted that the written forecast included in the box entitled “Commentary on Delivery Forecast” was that provided by the housebuilder. This forecast was incorrectly transcribed into the delivery forecast table on the proforma, but correctly set out in the 5YRHLS itself.

As noted by the appellant, Reserved Matters permission (reference number: 20190758) was granted in 25/10/2019. Whilst it is now unlikely that substantial completions will be achieved in 2020/21 I see nothing to suggest a full years completions cannot reasonably be achieved in 2021/22 given the developer’s clearly stated intentions to be on site within 2020/21. This is consistent with the developer most recent forecast provided for the update of the Council’s 5YR HLS. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 45 45 45 135 -15 B6 Land South of Salhouse 20160498 Whilst I agree there may have been a slight delay in delivery given that development has not yet begun on Road, Sprowston, site I do not consider that this justifies a reduction as proposed by the appellant. Norwich P2 It is clear from the Joint Delivery Statement that there is a motivated developer who is keen to get on site and deliver homes. The developer still intends to begin construction during 2020 and does not consider that there will be any reduction in delivery. An updated Joint Delivery Statement has been provided by the developer as part of the preparation of the Council’s housing land supply statement that confirms this fact.

Moreover, I do not read the construction plan in the same way as the appellant. The appellant appears to conclude that roads and sewers will not be completed until July 2021. There are actually 3 stages of the road and sewer construction programme, the first stage of which is listed as being completed by November 2020, the second in March 2021 and the final state in July 2021. Only the first and second stages are necessary to enable the delivery of the first phase of the development, and it would appear that construction of homes on the 1st phase is not dependant on completion of the second stage of highway and sewer construction. I read the statement of Phase 1 occupation by June 2022 as indicating when the developer anticipates that the whole of the phase will be occupied, not when the first occupation is anticipated. Necessarily this would mean that some homes would have been constructed during 2021/22.

On this basis of my reading of the construction programme and recent confirmation from the developer that the delivery forecast remains consistent with their intentions and expectation I do not consider there is any justification to reduce the housing delivery forecast. I do acknowledge that an application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review (JR) on this site was submitted on 07-08-2020. A summary grounds of defence has been submitted in response to this application on 27-08-20. The court number is CO/2801/2020R. The developer is confident that this application will not be successful and has informed the authority they intent to continue irrespective of the application and this is confirmed in their updated Joint Delivery Statement. Whilst accepting this creates uncertainty, bearing in mind that an outstanding JR does not prevent works taking place on sit unless an injunction is issues, and none has been in this case, I do not consider at this point in time it justifies discounting the deliverability of the site. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 10 100 100 100 310 0 B7 Land South of Salhouse 20170104 I accept that there has been a delay in the delivery of the site compared to that provided by the Road, Sprowston, housebuilder and included in the Joint Delivery Statement. I agree that the appellant’s reappraisal Norwich P3 represents what can now realistically be considered deliverable. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 30 40 40 110 -40 B8 Land at St Faiths Road, 20180920 I accept that the development is unlikely to be delivered fully in accordance with the Joint Delivery Old Catton, Norwich Statement as agreed. As part of the preparation of the 5YRHLS update the developer (Taylor Wimpey) has provided an updated trajectory. This is indicated below and suggests a lower level of delivery than suggested by the appellant. I am minded that this represents that most credible evidence in respect of the delivery of the site. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 24 62 75 52 213 -32 B9 Racecourse Plantation, 20161896 I disagree with the appellant’s conclusion that this site is not deliverable as no clear evidence has been Plumstead Road East, provided that indicates a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on site within 5 years. As set out Thorpe St Andrew, in the Joint Delivery Statement appended to the 5YR HLS the site promoter has been preparing to market Norwich, NR7 9LW the site and consulting on options for the Community Woodland Park. This is clear evidence of the intentions to progress the site within the 5 year period, the timescale having been informed by professional advisors.

I do however accept that the marketing exercise was delayed in light of the the impact of Covid-19. Nonetheless, the site’s promoter has now informed the Council that the site has been marketed with bids submitted during the first week of September. These bid are now being considered and the promoter expects to have selected bidder and proceeding to contracts for an expected sale in late 2020. In order to minimise the delays on the prospective purchaser beginning development on site the promoter and landowner have noe determined to to progress with the detailed planning of the Community Woodland Park, which forms part of overall development, which reduces the burden on the incoming developer and should reduce lead-in times. They have been in active discussions with the Council over the detailed planning of the woodland park.

On the basis of the expected sale in late 2020, the promoter, having taken advice from their advisors Strutt and Parker, has confirmed their expectation that they expect an incoming developer to progress with a reserve matters application and discharge pre-commencement conditions during 2021. On this timescale there is therefore a reasonable prospect that development could be begun in 2022 with first completions being realised in 2022/23. Again, having taken advice, the promoter has confirmed their expectations of overall delivery of 75 units per year. This is confirmed by a new Joint Delivery Statement updated by the promoter (I have included this in the appendix 3) as part of the preparation for the update of the Greater Norwich 5YR HLS assessment. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 75 75 150 -65 B10 White House Farm (North GT20 I do not agree with the appellant that there is no clear evidence of delivery. As explained in the Joint East) Delivery Statement published as part of the 5YRHLS this site is being delivered by the same consortium of Persimmon Homes, Taylor Wimpey and Hopkins Homes that is delivering the adjacent White House Farm (South-West) site. The developer has confirmed that infrastructure already delivered has been sized to accommodated this development and that reserved matters applications would be submitted soon after the grant of outline permission. This is a clear indication of the intentions of the developer with the forecast of commenment on site and subsequent completions based on their intentions and with the benefit of their intimate knowledge of the site and the preparatory work that has been undertaken, which includes not only the agreement of outline consent but also includes informal engagement with the authority on the detailed matters, which is currently with the authority. This is clearly consistent with the developer’s statement that outline permission would quickly be followed by applications for detailed consent.

That said, I accept there has been a delay of approximately 6 months from the date indicated in the Joint Delivery Statement. Acknowledging this I would consider that a reasonable expectation now would be to discount 50% of the forecast completions in 2021/22 (a proportionale adjustement to the developer’s forecast) and assume that the rates a for 2022/23 and 23/24 remain the same, reflecting the fact that other consortium members have clear intentions to be on site by this point.

In respect of this site it is also worth nothing that delivery across the White House Farm development in the recent past has typically delivered at a rate in excess of forecasts provided by the developers. This indicates that the forecasts provided may actually be cautious. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 35 122 146 303 -35 Total -531 .

Litchfield Site Name Permission Council’s Comments Reference Reference N1 Argyle Street (allocation) 14/01574/NF3 I disagree with the appellant’s interpretation of the Council report and status of the site. In support of the Council’s postion on this site I have included two Norwich City Council reports as part of appendix 3 to C11 this rebuttal statement. The first is a Cabinet Report dated 10 June 2020 which deals specifically with the Mile Cross Site, the second is a later Cabinet report dated 29 July 2020 that deals within a number of issues including three sites the Council intends to take forward “immediately”, including the Argyle Street site identified here. These are referred to as part of the evidence used, in my view incorrectly, to discount the sites as undeliverable but I could not find them included as part of the Core Document List or in the appendix to the Appellant’s statement. In addition, I have discussed the progress of the sites with the City Council’s interim housing development manager.

On the basis of my review of the relevant Cabinet reports and discussion with the interim housing development manager I have concluded as follows:

Whilst the appellant is correct that the site is in the ownership of the City Council, I do not agree with their statement that the City Council are a not a developer. As explained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the 29 July report since 2012 Government refinancing of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) the council has embarked on a programme of housebuilding that has so far provided 191 new Council homes. In addition the Council have a wholly owned development company known as Norwich Regeneration Limited (NRL)

At the 29 July 2020 cabinet meeting, the city Council has the virement of opportunities funding for deisign of the Argyle Street scheme. I understand from my discussion with the interim housing manger that this design work will be progressed during 2020. As listed in the report the Council now expects to deliver 14 homes on the site.

The delivery options put forward in the report are under active consideration and understand that a preferred route for delivery will be agreed through the Norwich City committee process before the end of 2020.

The current timetable for delivery of the site anticipated completion of the by Spring 2022. Given that the site has been identified as a priorty of imminent development by the Council, that design work funding has been agreed and is shortly to begin and that the Council will imminently identify a delivery route there is considered to be clear evidence to justify the conclusion that there is a realistic prospect of housing being compeleted within 5 years. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 14 0 0 14 +5

N2 Barn Road Car Park C22 18/01315/F I accept the use of the appellant’s multiplier so that the actual dwelling equivalent resulting from the site (allocation) is 106 homes, a 15 home reduction on the supply recorded in the 5YRHLS statement. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 106 0 0 0 106 -15 N3 Ber Street, 10-14 CC3 This site is allocated within the existing adopted local plan and is identified on the Norwich brownfield (allocation) land register. As identified by the appellant this site is already within the ownership of the City Council. It is also currently vacant. It is not accurate to suggest that the City Council isn’t a developer, the City Council has actively delivery a number of social housing sites in recent years and has a wholly owned development company called Norwich Regeneration Limitied (NRL). A Joint Delivery Statement was completed by the Landowner Norwich City Council and accurately reflects its intentions for the site. I understand from the City Council that initial design for the site have now been completely and they are exploring options for delivery. In my view this remains entirely consistent with their intentions as expressed in the Joint Delivery Statement to submit a planning application in 2021 and deliver dwellings within the 5 year period. I do not therefore consider there is any reason to exclude the site from the five year housing land supply. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 N4 Duke Street, Mary 18/01524/F I accept that the figure included within the housing land supply statement did not take into account the net loss resulting from the change of use from a care home has not been taken into consideration on this site. Chapman Court The previous student accommodation of 119 bedrooms was demolished (42 equivalent dwellings) and therefore the number of net dwellings provided by this site should be revised to -7. I note that the appellants appendix 1 incorrrectly identifies the total difference as -47. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 -7 0 0 -7 -7 N5 Ipswich Road, Norfolk R2 This is a City Council owned site. As established elsewhere the City Council are a developer. The agreed Learning Difficulties Joint Delivery Statement makes it clear that discussions are taking place to relocated the services and Centre (allocation) facilities provided by this site within 2-3 years from the date of the agree Joint Delivery Statement.

Notwithstanding the above, and whilst I still consider it likely that housing could be delivered within 5 years on this site I am, in this instance, prepared to accept the appellants amendment. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 0 -10 -10 N6 Mile Cross Depot 18/01290/DEM I disagree with the appellant that there is no developer or clear evidence of delivery. As set out elsewhere Norwich City Council is a developer with a wholly owned development company known as Norwich R36 Regeration Limited.

As the appellant correctly states permission was granted to demolish the Mile Cross Depot in 2018. As noted in the report of 10th June 2020, at its meeting on 25th September 2018 the Council agreed a £1.975m budget which was used to demolish and decontaminate the site ready for development. Again as noted in the report, these works have now been completed.

As noted in the report the Council has also now vired £180,000 of match funding from its opportunities fund, which along with the £180,000 of funding from Norfolk’s pooled business rates fund will enable surveys, design work, planning consultancy and project management to be carried out. As detailed in the report this work is still expected to be completed.

Again as detailed in the report, in addition to the virement of match funding for the surveys and professional studies outline above the land the Council also agreed to appropriate the land to its Housing Revenues Account enabling the scheme to come forward a social housing led development by the Council.

The report concludes with a timetable for the progress of the scheme on the basis of the decision taken above which explicitly sets out the Council’s intentions to prepare and submit a planning application in Spring 2021, starting on site in Autumn 2021 with phased completions achieved between June 2023 and June 2024.

The content of the Cabinet report therefore clearly sets out clear evidence that housing will be delivered on site within 5 years. Whilst I think it would be entirely reasonable on the basis of the available evidence to conclude the the scheme will be substantially completed by the end of 2024, and understand that this remains possible, on the basis of my discussion with the Interim Housing Development Manager I have concluded there is a more conservative 40 homes will now be completed within the 5 year period.

2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 40 40 -110 N7 Three Score, Bowthorpe I disagree with the appellant that there is no developer or clear evidence of delivery. As set out elsewhere 18/01586/RM Norwich City Council is a developer which is actively engaged in the delivery of a social housing 15/00298/RM programme and which has a wholly owned development company: Norwich Regeration Limited (NRL). 14/00874/RM 13/02031/RM As set out in the Cabinet report dated 29 July 2020, the city council agreed virement of opportunities 12/00703/O funding for design works of phase 3 of the Three Score site. In addition, it was agreed that the Three R38 Score land would be appropriated to the Housing Revenues Account (HRA) to enable the site’s delivery by the Council as a social housing scheme. I am informed by the Interim Housing Development Manager that it is intended that a mixture of right to buy receipts and HRA borrowing will be used to finance. The scheme. Whilst the precise delivery option remains under active consideration it is expected that recommendation for a decision will be taken to a Council committee for approval by the end of 2020.

As further detailed in the report this site has been identified to be taken forwards immediately, with the design funding agreed. I conside Far from making the development less deliverable, the progress of the scheme as a social housing development funded through right to buy receipts and HRA borrowing the makes the scheme eminently deliverable irrespective of the commercial difficulties highlighted by the appellant on other parts of the scheme.

With the agreement of funding for design work, which is intended to lead to the submission of a planning application there is a clear evidence of scheme progression and it can reasonably be expected that development will be completed during the 23/24 financial year if not before. The 90 homes identified for the social housing scheme should therefore remain in the trajectory. For east I’ve shown these occurring in the last year although it is likely that completions will be achieved at the end of 2022/23. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 18 48 26 79 90 261 -31 N8 Somerleyton Street, 17/01515/F I accept that the figure included within the housing land supply statement did not take into account the net Somerley Care Home, loss resulting from the change of use from a care home has not been taken into consideration on this site. conv to student accommodation, 66 The care home provided accommodation for 40 residents, using the multiplier of 8:1 for care homes bed bedrooms spaces as per this is 5 equivalent dwellings.

Using the appellant’s multiplier of 2.85, the 66 bedrooms created is equivalent to 23 dwellings. Therefore, the number of net dwellings provided by this scheme should be revised to 18 dwellings, a reduction of 5 dwellings from that reported in the housing land supply statement. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 18 0 0 0 0 18 -5 N9 St Mildreds Road, 112, 17/01762/F I accept the use of the appellant’s multiplier but consider that they have miscalculated the reduction that conv to student should be applied and that in accordance with the Errata schedule that there should be a net reduction of 2 accommodation, 34 homes from that reported in the housing land supply statement. bedrooms 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 23 0 0 0 0 -2 N10 St Stephan Street (6a) 702 17/00357/7F Whilst I accept the use of the appellant’s multiplier it appears that the number of equivalent homes has beds been miscalculated. The appellant has calculated the equivalent dwelling contribution on the bases of 602 not 702 beds. Therefore there should be a reduction of 36 units, not 71 as suggested by the appellant, from that reported in the housing land supply statement is appropriate for this site.

2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 246 0 0 0 0 246 -36 Total -211

.

South Norfolk Litchfield Site Name Permission Councils Comments Reference Reference SN1 Roundhouse Park 2008/2347 I do not agree with the appellant’s view that there is no clear evidence of delivery. There is currently an

active application for 32 homes in detail (reference 2019/2227) that has been submitted to address the 2018/0280 & reasons for refusal on the previous application (2018/0280). 2018/0281 is a detailed scheme for 18 2018/0281 dwellings, whilst there has been a delay this is because it contains the affordable homes quota for the 2019/2227. With 2019/2227 now very close to permission there is no reason to believe that approval of the application will continue to be delayed significantly.

I am informed by the case officer that there now remain only technical discussions to resolve before it goes before committee. These technical discussions relate to updated surface water information and affordable housing provision. The principle of development is acceptable as the site is inside development boundary and the neighbour impact issues have been addressed to officer satisfaction, although still subject to committee determination.

Overall, with a housebuilder on board and detailed applications under consideration for the remaining total of 50 homes there is self-evidently clear evidence of progress towards delivery and a realisitic prospect that 50 homes can be delivered within the 5 year period in accordance with the published Joint Delivery Statement. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 2 38 10 50 0 SN2 Cringleford NP allocation 2018/2200 Broadly I am in agreement with the appellant’s that there should be an amendment to the although I – South of the A11 consider that the level of discounting is excessive.

(Newfound Farm) In terms of progress with the site, pre-commencement conditions are almost completed. I am informed that the Council is only awaiting agreement with Cringleford Parish Council re details of the play areas, orchard and allotments which they are taking responsibility for, as it affects the landscaping drawings. All of the fundamental conditions have all been informally agree with the technical consultee.

It is also notable that Barratts have already made a CIL payments of £1.5M in July 2020, with the next payment of £1M due on Next due on 29 December 2020 1 million. No doubt the developer will wish to recoup this money as quickly as possible.

In connection with the preparation of the Council’s update to its housing land supply statement Barratt Homes have confirmirmed there current intentions for the site, this information has been provided directly by Barratts Construction director and this is reflected in the forecast below. I am able to confirm that Barratts and David Wilson homes will both be delivering homes on the site in parallel and will operate out of their own construction compounds utilising the two constructed access points to the site. Barratt and David Wilson home target different element of the market and their construction expectation is based on their knowledge of the delivery of their project within the local market. This justifies the high annual completions. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 12 115 119 117 363 -53 SN3 Cringleford NP allocation I accept the appellant’s proportional adjustment to the trajectory based on the Land to the north of A11 – South of the A11. and south-west of Round House Way, Cringleford given progress that has been achieve to date. Whilst there has been a short delay the housebuilder, Keir, remains committed to delivering the site. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 17 40 40 40 137 -36 SN4 West of Norwich Road 2018/0980 The appellant is correct that a reserve matter scheme for the 1st plot has now come forward and can reasonably be expected to deliver.

Whilst I still consider it possible that housing could be delivered within 5 years on this site I am, in this instance, prepared to accept the appellants amendment. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -21 SN5 Vinces Road DIS1 From the agree Joint Delivery Statement it is clear that the landowner remains committed to bringing forward a development scheme and is in active negotiations to bring forward a planning application. There is no reason to doubt this conclusion.

Notwithstanding the above, and whilst I still consider it likely that housing could be delivered within 5 years on this site I am, in this instance, prepared to accept the appellants amendment. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -35 SN6 Tunney’s Lane Field 2018/0121 I accept that the Council in error did not publish any supporting evidence to support the forecast provided for this site. This does not mean that evidence does not now exist that makes it reasonable to conclude that there is a realistic prospect the development will be delivered. Indeed the the appellant themselves has identified that a Full application for 27 dwellings (District Reference: 2019/1925) was submitted on 24th September 2019. Whilst this application reflects an uplift on the site that has outline permission at the basedate of the assessment, I am informed by the Case Officer that they have concluded consideration of the application and intend to be recommending it for delegated approval, subject to completion of a s106 to secure affordable housing and open space, which is currently in preparation. This application has been submitted by the housebuilder Badger Homes who will develop this site. There is therefore clearly a a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered as set out in the Council’s forecast. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 11 11 22 0 SN7 South and East of the 2014/2611 The Joint Delivery Statement published with the 5YRHLS provides a clear indication of the expected Village delivery forecast of the developer, and confirmation that the site remains available and viable. It can readily be inferred that this is on the basis of their detailed understanding of the preparatory works that were leading towards the submission of a Reserved Matters application.

This has largely been born out by subsequent progress. As identified by the appellant the design code identified within the Joint Delivery Statement has now been approved. In addition an RM application for phase 1 the first phase of 292 dwellings (District Reference 2020/0962) has been submitted and is pending determination. I am informed by the Case Officer that it is expected that this application will be deterimined within the next two months. Moreover, Persimmon Homes has also indicated to the case officer that a Phase 2 RM being worked up ready for submission as well work to address as pre- commencement conditions and that they wish to start date on site in late 2020 as set out in the Joint Delivery Statement and are clearly preparing to do so.

I would accept that the delivery may now be delayed relative to the developer’s delivery forecast that is set out in the Joint Delivery Statement. Based on the clear intentions of the developer I consider that such a delay is unlikely to prevent a meaningful start within the 2020/21 year enabling a full year of delivery in 2021/22. Therefore, I do not consider that there is justification for any reduction beyond the 15 initially planned for 2020/21.

2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 55 55 55 165 -15 SN8 High Green 2015/2536 The original permission was for 10 dwellings and has not expired because the development was started within the designated timescale. 3 of the original 10 dwellings are built and occupied. The same developer has submitted the new application for an additional 4 dwellings to create 14 in total. The case officer is now in the later stages of S106 negotiation to amend the affordable housing provision so there are no further matters of principal at stake on 2020/0130. It is expected that this will be a delegated decision.

Even should 2020/0130 not progress, which seems unlikely, the extant permission delivering the remaining 7 dwellings originally approved can be built out without further application. If 2020/0130 is built out there would be 11 remaining to be built (the 14 – the 3 already finished). Saffron housing association has already on board to take the extra 4 houses.

As such there is clear evidence that the site still be delivered within the 5 year period. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 2 3 3 3 11 +4 SN9 LNGS1 AAP Allocations LNGS1 (Part) A hybrid application (District Reference 2018/0112) is currently under consideration which seeks full permission for 213 dwellings and outline permission for 387 dwellings has been submitted by Norfolk Home. A re-submission package, to address outstanding matters, is due to be prepared and the Council expects it to be submitted so as to enable the application to be consider by its Planning Committee in the first quarter of 2021/22. As noted by the appellant, £500,000 received from central government to build outline business case for the bypass. This funding relates the the fact that the bypass scheme has already been granted conditional approval as part of the Major Route Network Programme. I understand the outline business case is expected to be submitted by the end of 2020.

There is no reason to conclude that this business case will not be accepted and the funding approved for the road scheme and the delivery of the bypass is not dependant on the purchase of land and planning work is in an advance stage as part of the outline business case.

There is self-evidently clear progress being made and the developer, Norfolk Home, has set out their clear intention to deliver housing within the 5 year period. I consider that there is good reason to conclude that permission will be granted and funding given to deliver the road. Given the site is an allocated scheme I do not consider it likely that the Highways England’s concerned cannot be met once delivery of the road scheme is confirmed enabline a first tranche of development be be begun.

Whilst absolutely certainty cannot be given, this goes beyond what is necessary to demonstrate a realistic prospect of development. There is in my view clear progress which leads to the conclusion that housing will be achieved within 5 years. I have however adjusted the trajectory to reflect the latest intentions of the developer as set out in their response to the Council’s update to its 5YR HLS. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 30 30 -25 SN10 West of The Street / North 2014/0319 The scheme is actively being delivered, an updated trajectory has been provided as part of the update to of Shotesham Road the Housing Land Suppy Statement. This new trajectory is reflected below and indicates that the scheme will deliver less that assessed by the appellant. I consider this to be the most accurate assessment of deliverability. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 5 25 25 25 80 -20 SN11 Land off Denmark Road DIS3 I disagree with that there is no firm evidence. There is self-evidently an agreed Joint Delivery Statement that explains that the developers were planning to undertake studies in preparation of a planning application. There is no reason to draw a conclusion that this is not a true and accurate statement. A further statement has now been prepared by the developer in connection with the update of the Council’s housing land supply statement for 1 April 2020. This has confirmed again that the developer is working on a planning application which they intend to submit within 6-12 months and start on site sortly after. The completions forecast provided by the developer is reflected below and provides clear evidence that there is a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on site within 5 years. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 30 12 42 0

SN12 South of Long Lane 2016/2153 I accept that this has been inadvertently duplicated in the housing land supply statement and should be removed from the deliverable supply. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10 SN13 Main Road SWA1 As identified by the appellants the site is actively being marketed and the agent working on behalf of the has confirmed his expectations for achieving a sale and the subsequent progress through application and to delivery.

I have subsequently discussed the site with the agent who has confirmed that he considers the site to be guide price to be realistic and consistent with current market value. He has also confirmed that he has received offers on the site within tolerance of the guide price, although it is accurate to say that to date no sale has been agreed.

Notwithstanding the above, whilst I still consider it likely that housing could be delivered within 5 years on this site I am, in this instance, prepared to accept the appellants amendment. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -30 SN14 Land adj. The Fields 2017/0225 As set out within the Joint Delivery Statement, this site was allocated in the South Norfolk site allocations plan in October 2015, the landowner themselves secured outline planning consent thereafter. Having secured outline planning consent the scheme is now being marketed for sale. This process is entirely consistent with the process you might accept for a landowner led scheme and in my view this is itself clear evidence of progress with the site.

I accept that it does not appear that the site has yet been sold to a developer. The Council has however been in informal discussion with a prospective developer who has been evaluating the site. This is indicative that progress is being made towards the next milestone of a developer taking the site on and submitting reserve matters consent.

I accept that the Council’s current trajectory will now not be achieved. Nothwithstanding this, I still consider there is clear reasons to conclude that a sale is likely to be achieved and reserve matter application submitted in accordance with the outline permission. In my view this could reasonably lead to a start on site in 2022/23 with the site being completed by the end of the 5 year period. Therefore I do not consider that there is any justification to amend the Council’s forecast completions within the 5 year period. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 10 11 21 0 SN15 Church Road TAS1 The appellant is correct that a sale to a housebuilder had previously nearly completed but was ultimately not able to be completed. I understand from speaking to the agent that another prospective developer is now assessing the site, and they have also had initial informal discussions with the Council’s housing enabling officer. Notwithstanding the above, whilst I still consider it likely that housing could be delivered within 5 years on this site I am, in this instance, prepared to accept the appellants amendment. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10 SN16 Devon Way / Hudson 2014/0981 I disagree with the appellant’s assessment of the site. As identified by the appellant a detailed planning application (District Reference 2019/2318) has been submitted by housebuilder Norfolk Homes for 83 Avenue units. I am informed by the case officer that this application is now at an advance stage and is expected to be determined within the next month or two, pending the completion of the S106.

It is important to note that the site forms a continuation of the adjacent Norfolk Homes Ltd site which is in an advance stage of completion. This provides a clear indication that this site will be started soon after the determination of the detailed application.

Application ref 2017/2670 relates to the same site but by the original landowner, which pre dates the Norfolk Homes application and is now irrelevant to the delivery of the scheme.

The existence of a detailed planning applications on behalf of Norfolk Homes is clear evidence that the scheme will be delivered within the 5 year period and there is no justifiable reason to conclude the the site cannot be delivered as set out by Norfolk Homes in the Joint Delivery Statement.

2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 15 30 45 0 SN17 London Road / Suton 2014/2495 & I accept that there will now be a delay relative to the Council’s forecast. In association with the update of Lane 2018/2758 its Housing Land Supply Statement the Council has now received an updated forecast from the Developer, included in appendix 3. I consider that this is now the best evidence available. It indicates a slightly larger reduction than proposed by the appellant. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 20 40 40 100 -45 SN18 Elm Farm, Norwich 2019/0538 I agree with the appellant that the site is deliverable. I disagree that there is any justifiable reason to Common discount the expected rate of delivery put forwards by the developer. The rate included within the “start to finish” used by the applicant is described as an average. Necessarily this will mean that some sites would deliver more units per year than others. It is in no way clear that the average established within “Start to Finish” is representative of what a developer such as Persimmon homes could be expected to achieve in a market such as Wymondham. The developer has provided the forecast used and added their name to the statement to confirm that it is a true reflection of their expectations. As can be seen from a review of Joint Delivery Statements provided by Persimmon Homes, there is a variation in their expected delivery rate which self-evidently reflects their detailed knowledge of local market conditions in particular areas. In my view this is sufficient evidence in itself to maintain the current trajectory.

However to support the credibility of Persimmon Homes forecast I have included the results for the Council’s monitoring returns for persimmon homes parcels of the White House Farm site 16/17 = 77, 17/18 = 65, 18/19 = 86, 19/20 = 50, and average of 69.5. Not only is this above the Start to Finish average of 55, it is also wholly consistent with Persimmon Homes forecast of 70 homes per annum on sites within Sprowston. This clearly demonstrates that Persimmon are able to consistently deliver above the “Start to Finish” average and that they provide forecasts consistent with the local market position. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 25 80 80 80 265 0 SN19 Former Sale Ground, 2016/2668 I disagree with the appellant’s conclusion that the site is not deliverable. The Joint Delivery Statement Cemetary Lane clearly states that the submission of a Reserved Matters application was expected. Whilst this did not occur during 2019 as originally anticipated, a Reserve Matters application for 58 units (District Reference: 2020/1439) was validated 10.08.20. Later on 01.09.2020 an application for the discharge of landscaping, tree protection and biodiversity conditions within the outline permission 2016/2668. There is therefore clear evidence that progress is being made towards securing detailed consent. I accept however that there has been a delay of around 1 year on the development site. Therefore, I consider that slipping the forecast by 1 year represents what should be considered a realistic prospect of delivery. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 20 20 40 -21 SN20 Friarscroft Lane WYM1 This is a Council owned site and is to be developed by Big Sky. Big Sky are South Norfolk Council’s housing delivery company, who have a proven track record of delivery. I understand from the case officer that a pre-application public consultation is planned to take place commencing mid-September 2020 prior to the submission of a planning application by the end of October 2020.

It is therefore clear evidence that these site is progressing in line with the agreed Joint Delivery Statement and that there remains a realistic prospect that the 14 homes will be delivered within the 5 year period. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 Total -317 Overall Total -1,059

Appendix 2 – Sites where evidence indicates faster delivery

Broadland Site Name Permission Council’s Comments Reference Reference BDC1 Land Adj. Hall Lane, OPA 20161066 The sites was allocated within the Broadland District Site Allocation Plan in 2016. Outline Planning Drayton Permisison for 250 homes was granted on 17/02/2020. Subsequently a full application on behalf of Hopkin Homes for 267 homes (District Reference 20200640) was submitted on 20-03-2020.

This application is under active consideration and it is considered that despite the relatively small uplift in numbers that the application is likely to be acceptable. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the application to be determined by the end of 2020/21 or early in 2021/22. As such there is a realisitic possibility that homes will be completed within 2022/23 if not before.

As set out in the Joint Delivery Statement for White House Farm South-West and North-East Hopkins Homes expected a rate of delivery in north Norwich of between 54 and 60 homes. For the purposes of this assessment a mid-point of 57 homes has been assumed as a full years delivery. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 30 57 87 +87

BDC2 Land West of Holt Road, 20161770 A full application (Distict Reference 20190999) was approved on 12-05-2020 for an increased number of Horsford 304 homes. This application was carried out in parralell with the build out of the previous permission, with the uplift resulting from the development of land previous set aside as informal open space as part fo the application. The current trajectory shows the final tranche of 34 homes being completed in 2023/24. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 34 73 62 54 54 277 +20 BDC3 Land East of Broadland A Hybrid application on the site for 315 homes in detail and 205 dwellings in outline was submitted on Business Park 02-10-2018. This application is now subject to a committee resolution to grant planning permission. The S106 is now agreed, but not yet signed with the single remaining issue relating to the completion of a Phase 1 Road Safety Audit and the agreement of some amendments to the highway improvement plan for Smee Lane. On this basis a planning permission can realistically be expected by the end of 2020/21.

On the basis that a full permission can be expected in the near future and that the application has been submitted by a housebuilder, it is considered a realistic possibility that housing will be complete in the near future. An agreed statement has now been provided by the developer in connection with the update of the Council’s housing land supply statement, I have reflected the developer’s expections in the forecast. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 30 65 65 160 +160 SNC1 Little Melton, South of 2017/2843 A reserved matters application for 30 dwellings (District Reference: 2019/2485) was submitted on behalf School Lane of a developer on 10-12-2019. This application was approved on 27-03-2020. There is therefore now clear evidence that there is a realisitic prospect that housing will be compelted within 5 years. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 0 0 0 15 15 30 +30 SNC2 Georges Lane, Loddon 2016/0853 South Norfolk Council has recently agreed to increase the trigger point for the delivery of the roundabout connected with this scheme by 20 homes. The current trajectory cautiously excluded development to be provided after the delivery of the roundabout, although this may well be delivered. Therefore I consider this justifies an increase in delivery of 20 homes within the 5 year period. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 38 38 20 0 0 76 +20 SNC3 Health Farm, Poringland 2016/2388 The remaining capacity on the site at 1 April 2019 was actually 84 homes not 52 homes. This has been corrected in the forecast below and should count towards the housing land supply. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 36 36 12 0 0 84 +32 SNC4 Wymondham RFU 2014/0799 A Reserve Matters application (District Reference 2019/1788) has been submitted and a revised layout is currently being consulted upon. The revised layout refects the developer’s (Saffron Housing) intentions for the site. A number of applications to discharge conditions have also been recieved. There is therefore considered to be a clear evidence of progress on site that demonstrates a realistic prospect that housing can be delivered on site within 5 years.

In conversation with the Development Director at Saffron that following the expected grant of planning permission in Autum 2020, he anticipates there will be approximately 4 months of work to discharge conditions that should enable a start on site in Spring 2021, with the scheme expected to be complete by December 2022. This is reflected in the trajectory below. 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total Difference (5 Yrs) 45 45 90 +90 Total +439

Appendix 3 –Other Delivery Evidence

Norwich City Cabinet Report 10 June 2020

Norwich City Cabinet Report 29 July 2020

.

Site & Developer/Agent Details Developer/Agent Barratt David Wilson Homes (Eastern Counties) Reference 20160498 Location Land South of Salhouse Road, Sprowston Planning Status Outline Planning Permission Description of Proposed residential development of a minimum of 803 dwellings with Development access road and associated infrastructure … Site Progress Total Homes 0 Homes Under 0 Completed at 1st April Construction at 1st 2020 April 2020 Number of Homes Competed by Year . 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 - - - - - . Commentary on Site Progress The outline application for the site was submitted on 05/04/2016, slightly in advance of the confirmation of the site’s allocations through the Growth Triangle Area Action plan in July 2016. A Council resolution to grant planning permission was given on 01/11/2017. Outline consent was granted on 07/03/19. The delay to the grant of planning permission was principally due to complicated negotiations that resulted from there being the two separate but inherently inter- related applications that were submitted on the GT7 allocation site.

The 1st phase of the site has been purchased by Kier Living.

Barratt David Wilson Homes (BDWH) have purchased Phases 2-4 and secured detailed planning permission (20200447) on 26/06/2020 for 535 homes.

Phase 5 remains in separate ownership.

There are no known viability, ownership or infrastructure constraints that would prevent the development of the site. Delivery Forecast . 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 10 100 100 100 100 . Commentary on Delivery Forecast Barratt Homes submitted a Reserve Matters application on 04/03/2020, which was approved on 26/06/2020. They intend to start on site mid-O2020.

BDWH anticipates the following delivery programme 20/21 = 10 completions, 21/22 = 100, 22/23 = 100, 23/24 = 100, 24/25 = 100, 2025/26 = 60, 2026/27 = 65. This rate is consistent with their experience of the local market

Developer’s Declaration I confirm that:  the site is available, viable and can be delivered at the point envisaged and at the build out rate shown in the delivery forecast. and,  that to the best of my knowledge the information included within this Site Assessment form is accurate. Local Authority: Broadland District Council Developer/Agent: Barratt David Wilson Homes (Eastern Counties) Name: Diane Barr Name: Ray Houghton Job Title: Spatial Planning Monitoring Officer Job Title: Head of Planning Date: 18 Aug 2020 Date: 15 September 2020

.

Site & Developer/Agent Details Developer/Agent Socially Conscious Capital Ltd (SCC) / Strutt & Parker Reference 20161896 Location Racecourse Plantation, Plumstead Road Planning Status Outline Planning Permission. Description of Erection of up to 300 New Homes and the Creation of a New Community Development Woodland Park (Outline) Site Progress Total Homes 0 Homes Under 0 Completed at 1st April Construction at 1st 2020 April 2020 Number of Homes Competed by Year . 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 - - - - - . Commentary on Site Progress An outline application for the development of the site was submitted on 01/11/2016. The application was refused on 14/06/2017. The decision to refuse the application was subsequently appealed. The appeal was allowed and outline planning permission was granted for the development on 30/01/2019.

Following the planning permission becoming immune from challenge, SCC has been preparing to market the development site for sale to a developer and consulting on the options for the new Community Woodland Park.

Delivery Forecast . 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 0 0 75 75 75 . Commentary on Delivery Forecast

The marketing campaign was due to be launched in February 2020 but had to be postponed because of the Covid-19 crisis. We believe this will have delayed the development programme by at least 6 months, and maybe more. SCC and the TFT (the landowner) have decided to progress with detailed planning of the CWP Scheme. Following the expected sale of the residential development site in late 2020, the incoming developer will then prepare and submit an application for reserved matters and will discharge the pre-commencement conditions during 2021. Therefore, we currently anticipate the development and delivery of the CWP commencing in early 2022. There are 201 new market homes and 99 new affordable homes; we expect the developer to build out at a rate of 35 - 50 market homes per annum, while the affordable homes will likely be built out more quickly than that, so it will take approximately 4 -5 years for the development to be completed.

Developer’s Declaration I confirm that:  the site is available, viable and can be delivered at the point envisaged and at the build out rate shown in the delivery forecast. and,  that to the best of my knowledge the information included within this Site Assessment form is accurate. Local Authority: Broadland District Council Developer/Agent: Socially Conscious Capital

Name: Diane Barr Name: Rock Feilding-Mellen

Job Title: Spatial Planning Monitoring Officer Job Title: Director

Date: 18 Aug 2020 Date: 10/09/2020

.

Site & Developer/Agent Details Developer/Agent Chris Webber c/o Barratt Eastern Counties Reference 2013/1793 & 2018/2200 Cringleford NP HOU1 Location Cringleford: Newfound Farm Neighbourhood Allocation Planning Status Detailed Permission Description of Up to 650 dwellings, local centre & primary school Development Site Progress Total Homes 0 Homes Under 0 Completed at 1st April Construction at 1st 2020 April 2020 Number of Homes Completed by Year . 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 - - - - - . Commentary on Site Progress Following applications approved: 2018/1389/D – RM for phase 1 spine road, drainage and landscaping 2018/2200/D – RM for appearance, layout and scale

Plots under construction are only at foundation level of lower Delivery Forecast . 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 12 115 119 117 121 . Commentary on Delivery Forecast 2025/26 – 121 Units 2026-27 – 45 Units

Throughout 2020/21, whilst only 12 initial units will be completed, the site will be undergoing significant infrastructure work including the setup of two construction compounds. This site will be dual branded so will have two simultaneous construction/sales outlets hence why delivery per year from 2021/22 onwards is higher than normal.

Developer’s Declaration I confirm that:  the site is available, viable and can be delivered at the point envisaged and at the build out rate shown in the delivery forecast. and,  that to the best of my knowledge the information included within this Site Assessment form is accurate. Local Authority: Developer/Agent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Print Name: Daisy Sutcliffe Print Name: Chris Webber

Job Title: Spatial Planning Monitoring Officer Job Title: Planner

Date: 21st August 2020 Date: 14 September 2020

.

Site & Developer/Agent Details Developer/Agent James Nicholls c/o Norfolk Homes Ltd Reference Allocation LNGS1 (part) Location Long Stratton: North west of the village Planning Status Allocated site with hybrid application under consideration Description of 600 dwellings, link road and employment land Development Site Progress Total Homes 0 Homes Under 0 Completed at 1st April Construction at 1st 2020 April 2020 Number of Homes Completed by Year . 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 - - - - - . Commentary on Site Progress 2018/0112/O – Outline permission (pending consideration)

Delivery Forecast . 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 0 0 0 30 30 . Commentary on Delivery Forecast

Developer’s Declaration I confirm that:  the site is available, viable and can be delivered at the point envisaged and at the build out rate shown in the delivery forecast. and,  that to the best of my knowledge the information included within this Site Assessment form is accurate. Local Authority: Developer/Agent: Norfolk Homes

Print Name: Daisy Sutcliffe Print Name: Craig Lockwood

Job Title: Spatial Planning Monitoring Officer Job Title: Land & Planning Manager

Date: 21st August 2020 Date: 08.09.20

.

Site & Developer/Agent Details Developer/Agent Sam Sinclair c/o Lovell Construction Reference 2014/2495/O, 2018/2758/D & 2019/1804/D (PCO) Location Wymondham: London Road/Suton Lane Planning Status Outline Permission & some detailed permission Description of 335 dwellings, neighbourhood centre and cemetery Development Site Progress Total Homes 0 Homes Under 15 Completed at 1st April Construction at 1st 2020 April 2020 Number of Homes Completed by Year . 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 - - - - - . Commentary on Site Progress 2019/1804/D – Reserved matters (pending consideration) for 246 dwellings

Delivery Forecast . 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 20 40 40 40 . Commentary on Delivery Forecast

Developer’s Declaration I confirm that:  the site is available, viable and can be delivered at the point envisaged and at the build out rate shown in the delivery forecast. and,  that to the best of my knowledge the information included within this Site Assessment form is accurate. Local Authority: Developer/Agent:

Print Name: Daisy Sutcliffe Print Name: Sam Sinclair

Job Title: Spatial Planning Monitoring Officer Job Title: Regional Technical Manager

Date: 21st August 2020 Date: 05/09/2020

.

Appendix 4 – Broadland and Norwich small sites commitment

Sites of 9 or fewer homes in Broadland

Net New Date Homes at 1 Site Address Reference Granted April 2019 Windle Farm, The Windle, Acle, Norwich, NR13 3JT 20161475 18/10/2016 1 49A Damgate Lane, Acle, Norwich, NR13 3DJ 20171123 04/12/2017 0 Gaverne House, New Road, Acle, Norwich, NR13 3BE 20180327 25/04/2018 1 Nicholas Hancox Solicitors Ltd, Calthorpe Green, Old Road, Acle, Norwich, NR13 3QL 20181732 17/12/2018 1 Land Adj 27 Mill Lane, Acle, Norwich, NR13 3BJ 20190011 14/02/2019 1 Alderford Barns, Church Farm, Hall Road, Alderford, Norwich, NR9 5NF 20161983 04/01/2017 1 Church Farm, Hall Road, Alderford, Norwich, NR9 5NF 20170726 22/06/2017 1 Old Hall Farm, Fakenham Road, Attlebridge, Norwich, NR9 5TQ 20180454 11/05/2018 3 Farm View, Old Fakenham Road, Attlebridge, Norwich, NR9 5ST 20180554 26/06/2018 0 Barn at Abbotts Hall,, Drabblegate,, Aylsham,, NR11 6LR 20111441 06/12/2011 1 31-33, Red Lion Street, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6ER 20130173 09/04/2013 1 Plots 18 & 19,Former BOCM Site, Dunkirk, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6SU 20130199 16/04/2013 0 Hungate Lodge, Hungate Street, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6JZ 20142017 11/04/2016 7 9, Penfold Street, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6ET 20150534 05/06/2015 0 Aylsham Watermill, Mill Row, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6HZ 20150899 29/10/2015 0 The Old Mill, Dunkirk, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6SU 20151963 31/03/2016 6 117, Norwich Road, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6JQ 20161104 03/08/2016 0 Woodgate Farm, Woodgate, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6UJ 20161249 27/09/2016 1 Bushey Farm, Cromer Road, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6HF 20161583 17/11/2016 0 Former Norfolk County Council Offices, Gashouse Hill, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6HY 20161813 05/04/2017 9 Land adj 14 White Hart Street, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6HG 20161905 23/12/2016 1 Pike House, Sir Williams Lane, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6AN 20162156 27/01/2017 0 Top Flat,38 Red Lion Street, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6ER 20170472 12/05/2017 0 Emmanuel Church, White Hart Street, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6HG 20180321 22/05/2018 1 The Old Stables, Unicorn Yard, Hungate Street, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6AA 20180820 12/07/2018 1 15 White Hart Street, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6HG 20181143 24/09/2018 1 17 Pound Lane, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6DR 20181357 25/09/2018 1 St Michaels Service Station, 50 Cawston Road, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6EB 20181761 07/02/2019 -1 Frogshall Barn, Dairy Farm, Spa Lane, Aylsham, Norwich 20181844 22/01/2019 2 Red Hall Farm Barns, Beeston Lane, Beeston St Andrew, Norwich, NR12 7BL 20162127 14/02/2018 6 Park Farm, Beeston Lane,,NR12 7BP, Beeston St Andrew, Norwich 20162128 04/12/2017 3 Plot Adj The Poplars, Acle Road, Moulton St Mary, Norwich, NR13 3AP 20170205 24/03/2017 1 Manor Hall, Acle Road, Beighton, Norwich, NR13 3NW 20170245 23/05/2017 2 Chicken Shed, Land Adj. Four Oaks, Acle Road, Moulton St Mary, Norwich, NR13 3AP 20171549 01/11/2017 1 The Old Post Office, Acle Road, Moulton St Mary, Norwich, NR13 3AP 20180117 16/04/2018 1 18-20 Silvergate, Silvergate Lane, Blickling, Norwich, NR11 6NN 20171332 12/02/2018 0 Fox Lane, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4LW 20160102 06/04/2016 1 Fox Lane, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4LW 20160813 24/01/2017 4 Woodbastwick Road, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4QH 20161588 25/04/2018 4 Land North of Bullacebush Lane, Blofield, Norwich 20161615 09/12/2016 1 Aldersbrook, Woodbastwick Road,,, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4QH 20170023 09/03/2017 0 Land off Woodbastwick Road,,, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4RR 20170207 08/05/2017 0 Plot Adjacent 15 St Andrews Way,Blofield,NR13 4LA 20170405 26/04/2017 0 Land at Clarkes Loke,, Blofield, Norwich 20170634 28/02/2018 1 Garden Farm, Land South of Yarmouth Road and North of Lingwood Road, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4JG 20171053 05/04/2018 0 The Manse, Globe Lane, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4JW 20171081 08/12/2017 7 Blofield Nurseries, Hall Road,,, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4DB 20171686 09/03/2018 9 Land at Dawson's Lane,,, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4SB 20172032 06/02/2019 8 The Conifers, Orchard Close, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4SE 20180783 03/09/2018 1 The Old Hall, 11 Church Road, Blofield, Norwich, NR13 4NA 20181485 12/11/2018 1 Town Farm, Eves Hill, Norwich Road, Booton, Norwich, NR10 4NY 20150454 01/07/2015 0 Town Farm, Eves Hill, Norwich Road, Booton, Norwich, NR10 4NY 20161366 30/09/2016 0 Barn at Brampton Hall Farm, Buxton Road, Brampton, Norwich, NR10 5HW 20180331 08/08/2018 1 North Farm, Aylsham Road, Brampton, Norwich, NR11 6TW 20181217 05/09/2018 1 Lindon House,17, East Avenue, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5PB 20151138 27/08/2015 1 Land off Station New Road, Brundall, Norwich 20151200 06/10/2015 0 Land adj. 13, Station New Road,, Brundall, Norwich 20151201 06/10/2015 0 Honeycomb Dental Centre, 114 The Street, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5LP 20160126 08/03/2016 0 Herons Hill, 35 The Street, Brundall, NR13 5AA 20160842 05/08/2016 1 Wideacre,30, Blofield Road, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5NN 20161183 05/10/2016 0 Land off Oakhill, Brundall, Norwich 20161394 23/10/2017 3 21 Strumpshaw Road, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5PA 20161481 26/10/2016 1 Barns at Low Farm, Postwick Lane, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5RQ 20170502 26/05/2017 2 The Cottage,39 Strumpshaw Road, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5PG 20171288 27/10/2017 0 Site off Oakhill, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5AQ 20172095 29/01/2018 1 17 Braydeston Avenue, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5QD 20172146 23/03/2018 1 Hillside, Strumpshaw Road, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5PA 20172187 27/03/2018 2 Hillside, Strumpshaw Road, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5PA 20172188 27/03/2018 2 Mere Lodge, 9 Laurel Drive, Brundall, Norwich, NR13 5RE 20180341 17/04/2018 0 Tuttington Hall Farm, Tuttington, Norwich, NR11 6TL 20141675 29/06/2015 3 Bircham & Woodcox, The Heath, Buxton, Norwich, NR10 5JA 20140326 04/04/2014 0 Land Adj. Home Farm House, Brook Street, Buxton, Norwich, NR10 5HF 20140766 02/07/2014 1 Site adj the, White House, Mill Street, Buxton, Norwich, NR10 5JE 20150594 03/06/2015 0 Buxton Post Office, 9, Brook Street, Buxton, Norwich, NR10 5AB 20160204 30/03/2016 0 Urania, Crown Road, Buxton With Lamas, Norwich, NR10 5EH 20160740 06/12/2016 0 Hall Farm Barns, The Street, Buxton With Lamas, Norwich, NR10 5JQ 20172080 18/01/2018 1 Southwood Hall, The Common, Cantley, Norwich, NR13 3LR 20151161 15/02/2016 0 Grove Farm, Old Cantley Road, Cantley, Norwich, NR13 3JJ 20152018 04/02/2016 1 Grange Road, Cantley, Norwich, NR13 3SG 20152057 07/03/2016 0 The Oaks House, 3 Burnt House Road, Cantley, Norwich, NR13 3RT 20162181 24/04/2017 1 38 Church Road, Cantley, Norwich, NR13 3SN 20171170 04/10/2017 0 36 Church Road, Cantley, Norwich, NR13 3SN 20172001 09/02/2018 1 Garage Block, Grange Road, Cantley, Norwich, NR13 3SG 20181584 14/12/2018 1 Methodist Chapel, Norwich Road, Cawston, Norwich, NR10 4AP 20141067 17/09/2014 1 Land Adj. Field House, 61, Norwich Road, Cawston, Norwich, NR10 4EU 20160964 29/06/2016 1 Arcadia, 9 Norwich Road, Cawston, Norwich, NR10 4ER 20161931 20/12/2016 1 Red Brick Barn, Back Lane, Cawston, Norwich, NR10 4HL 20171191 14/09/2017 1 Wood Farm Barn, Brandiston Road, Cawston, Norwich, NR10 4ES 20171944 03/01/2018 0 The Old Workhouse, 59 Chapel Street, Cawston, Norwich, NR10 4BG 20172068 18/01/2018 1 Land off Spa Lane, Aylsham, Norwich, NR11 6UG 20180921 25/07/2018 1 Valley Farm, Booton Road, Cawston, Norwich, NR10 4AH 20190033 25/02/2019 1 Annexe,The Old Railway Station,31, Station Road, Coltishall, Norwich, NR12 7JG 20160512 02/06/2016 1 Ling House, Ling Common, Coltishall, Norwich, NR12 7JE 20161370 17/11/2016 1 11 Ling Way, Coltishall, Norwich, NR12 7HX 20170664 06/06/2017 1 Land to the rear of 8A Station Road, Coltishall, Norwich, NR12 7JL 20180065 25/05/2018 1 18 High Street, Coltishall, Norwich, NR12 7DH 20180668 13/06/2018 1 Westbourne House, 6 Westbourne Road, Coltishall, Norwich, NR12 7HT 20181120 21/09/2018 2 Broadwalk, North Walsham Road, Crostwick, Norwich, NR12 7BZ 20161088 11/08/2016 0 35, School Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6EG 20140186 02/04/2014 2 1, Manor Farm Close, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6EE 20150073 14/04/2015 2 Drayton Wood, Drayton High Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6BL 20150947 09/06/2016 4 68, School Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6EG 20160938 19/07/2016 1 46, Howell Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6BU 20161135 15/08/2016 0 Plot 6,Rear of Firbanks,, 35 School Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6EF 20161832 16/03/2017 1 16 Station Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6SA 20170889 14/07/2017 0 Plot 5,Rear of Firbanks, 35 School Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6EF 20180448 15/05/2018 1 94 Fakenham Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6PY 20180598 29/10/2018 5 56 Taverham Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6RY 20180934 16/08/2018 0 11 Station Road, Drayton, Norwich, NR8 6SA 20181218 02/10/2018 1 Valley Farm, Holt Road, Felthorpe, Norwich, NR10 5NW 20141319 06/10/2014 3 Adj Woodstock, Hall Lane, Felthorpe, Norwich, NR10 4BX 20162037 16/01/2017 1 2-4 Taverham Road, Felthorpe, Norwich, NR10 4DS 20170731 21/06/2017 0 The Barn, Forest Shade, Haveringland Road, Felthorpe, Norwich, NR10 4BZ 20170941 03/07/2017 1 The Barn, Forest Shade, Haveringland Road, Felthorpe, Norwich, NR10 4BZ 20181437 23/10/2018 2 The Old Dairy, Haveringland Road, Felthorpe, Norwich, NR10 4BZ 20182086 15/03/2019 1 18, High Street, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5RT 20160336 13/04/2016 1 The Oaks, Reepham Road, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5PP 20161488 17/10/2016 0 Woodrow Farm, Reepham Road, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5PP 20171242 06/09/2017 1 Addison Farm, Hindolveston Road, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5SQ 20172013 08/01/2018 1 Manor House Farm, Reepham Road, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5PP 20180323 07/06/2018 1 Barn at Wood Norton Road, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5TX 20180617 07/06/2018 1 Station Farm, 3 Station Road, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5RD 20181089 31/10/2018 1 Mayfields Farm, Reepham Road, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5PP 20181469 08/11/2018 1 Barn at Wood Norton Road, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5TX 20181641 30/11/2018 1 Westfield Farm, The Courtyard, Foxley Road, Foulsham, Norwich, NR20 5RH 20181712 13/12/2018 1 Manor Farm Barns, 8, The Green,, Freethorpe 20081694 21/01/2009 3 Church Farm Cottages, Lower Green, Freethorpe, Norwich, NR13 3NP 20140852 01/07/2014 0 Land Adjoining 84, The Common, Freethorpe, Norwich, NR13 3LX 20160684 27/05/2016 0 8 & 10 Sutton Crescent, Freethorpe, Norwich, NR13 3NX 20161974 11/01/2017 2 27 The Green, Freethorpe, Norwich, NR13 3NY 20170585 24/05/2017 1 Brickyard Cottage, Reedham Road, Freethorpe, Norwich 20170838 27/06/2017 1 6 Sutton Crescent, Freethorpe, Norwich, NR13 3NX 20171413 01/11/2017 1 The Cart House, Manor Farm Barns, The Green, Freethorpe, Norwich, NR13 3NY 20181174 26/09/2018 1 38 Post Office Road, Frettenham, Norwich, NR12 7AB 20170300 04/04/2017 1 56-58 School Road, Frettenham, Norwich, NR12 7LL 20171873 12/01/2018 1 Plot 2B, 2 Freyden Way, Frettenham, Norwich, NR12 7NB 20181799 25/01/2019 1 Land adj, Bundu House, Broad Lane, Little Plumstead, Norwich, NR13 5BZ 20150698 02/07/2015 0 Post Office, 65, Plumstead Road, Thorpe End, Norwich, NR13 5AJ 20151799 03/05/2016 3 Smee Bungalow, Smee Lane, Great Plumstead, Norwich, NR13 5AX 20152040 10/02/2016 0 Greenways, 5, South Walk, Thorpe End, NR13 5BJ 20160282 08/06/2016 0 Brambles, 31 Plumstead Road, Thorpe End, Norwich, NR13 5BS 20161637 30/11/2016 1 Octagon Business Park, Hospital Road, Great Little Plumstead, Norwich 20162173 30/01/2018 7 Land at The Smithy, Salhouse Road, Little Plumstead, Norwich, NR13 5JJ 20172073 16/01/2018 0 Sunrise Cottage, Middle Road, Great Plumstead, Norwich, NR13 5EE 20180102 23/04/2018 1 Land North of Norwich Road, Great Plumstead,, Norwich, NR13 5BY 20181359 28/11/2018 1 Leighton House, Broad Lane, Great Little Plumstead, Norwich, NR13 5BZ 20182088 06/03/2019 2 Lakeside Manor, Lenwade House Drive, Fakenham Road, Lenwade, Norwich, NR9 5QP 20151215 11/07/2016 1 Land End of, Morse Close, Lenwade, Norwich, NR9 5QQ 20160253 06/04/2016 2 Wensum Barn, Rabbit Lane, Great Witchingham, Norwich, NR9 5GB 20160689 15/06/2016 1 Foxford Cottages, Heath Lane, Great Witchingham, Norwich, NR9 5QL 20161427 03/10/2016 -1 Forget Me Not Cafe, 7 - 9 Norwich Road, Lenwade, Norwich, NR9 5SH 20170317 09/05/2017 0 Highfield Farm, Rabbit Lane, Great Witchingham, Norwich, NR9 5FA 20181041 13/08/2018 1 Land Adjacent The Bridge Ph, Fakenham Road, Lenwade, Norwich, NR9 5SE 20181052 11/01/2019 9 Church Farm, Reepham Road, Guestwick, Norwich, NR20 5QE 20142074 20/02/2015 0 The White House, Old School Road, Guestwick, Norwich, NR20 5QD 20171483 26/10/2017 1 Lodge Farm, 6 Cromer Road, Hainford, Norwich, NR10 3AT 20170967 14/08/2017 1 Land to Rear of The Cottage, Grange Road, Hainford, Norwich, NR10 3BJ 20180060 29/03/2018 1 Hoot Hollow, Dumbs Lane, Hainford, Norwich, NR10 3BH 20180722 09/07/2018 1 3 Pollard Road, Hainford, Norwich, NR10 3BE 20181653 07/12/2018 1 Coach House Apartment, The Rookery, Sandhole Road, Halvergate, Norwich, NR13 3RZ 20160310 05/04/2016 1 Halvergate Mill, Mill Road, Halvergate, Norwich, NR13 3PG 20180786 06/07/2018 1 Larters Farm, Haveringland Road, Haveringland, Norwich, NR10 4PU 20162133 06/02/2017 2 Hawthorne Meadow Trust, Chapel Court, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5NU 20151084 24/08/2015 3 6, Pinewood Close, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5LX 20160535 14/07/2016 1 9, Pinewood Close, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5LX 20160933 25/07/2016 1 1 Wensum Crescent, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5DL 20161471 17/10/2016 0 306 Low Road, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5AW 20161647 24/11/2016 0 Rear of 58 & 60 Woodland Road, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5RW 20170319 19/04/2017 2 2 Meredith Road, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 6PD 20170660 31/05/2017 1 264 Reepham Road, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5SP 20171488 09/10/2017 0 Land adjacent to 4 Chapel Court, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5NU 20180473 16/05/2018 1 63 Woodland Road, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5RW 20180483 22/05/2018 2 127 Reepham Road, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5LY 20180806 14/06/2018 1 24 Cromer Road, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 6ND 20180950 29/10/2018 3 A & F Engineering Ltd, Middletons Lane, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5NQ 20180967 14/08/2018 2 139 Links Avenue, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 5PQ 20181075 23/08/2018 1 61 Firs Road, Hellesdon, Norwich, NR6 6UP 20181630 23/11/2018 0 Lilac Farm, 46 Cuttons Corner, Hemblington, Norwich, NR13 4PS 20162186 18/08/2017 4 Gable End, 44 Cuttons Corner, Hemblington, Norwich, NR13 4PS 20180470 16/05/2018 1 Hemblington Hall, Hemblington Hall Road, Hemblington, Norwich, NR13 4EF 20190166 29/03/2019 2 The Piggeries, The Turn, Hevingham, Norwich, NR10 5QP 20131748 05/03/2014 1 5, Westgate, Hevingham, Norwich, NR10 5NH 20150175 30/03/2015 0 14 Westgate, Hevingham, Norwich, NR10 5NH 20150301 16/04/2015 0 Plot 1, 19 Brick Kiln Road, Hevingham, Norwich, NR10 5NE 20172126 01/02/2018 1 Plot 2, 19 Brick Kiln Road, Hevingham, Norwich, NR10 5NE 20172127 01/02/2018 0 Dairy Farm Barns, Heydon Lane, Heydon, Norwich, NR11 6RX 20151208 20/10/2015 1 6, The Street, Heydon, Norwich, NR11 6RQ 20161315 20/09/2016 0 The Shop, The Street, Heydon, Norwich, NR11 6RQ 20161398 22/09/2016 0 High Common Farm, Norwich Road, Honingham, Norwich, NR9 5DH 20161521 17/10/2016 1 Low Meadow, Church Street, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DB 20141684 04/12/2014 1 Cairnsmore, 270, Holt Road, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3EH 20141978 02/02/2015 1 Acorn Cottage, 138 Holt Road, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DW 20160198 16/03/2016 0 78, Holt Road, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DE 20160710 13/06/2016 0 Larksrise, Dog Lane, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DH 20161207 25/06/2018 7 246 Holt Road, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3EH 20161957 20/12/2016 0 78 Holt Road, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DE 20170113 20/02/2017 1 Poplars Farm Barns, Dog Lane, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DH 20170517 01/06/2017 0 Norfolk Saw Services, Dog Lane, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DH 20170702 21/06/2017 1 Mill Lane Farm, Mill Lane, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3EX 20170707 04/01/2018 8 Camellia,134 Holt Road, Horsford, Norwich 20171761 23/11/2017 1 181 Holt Road, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DX 20172140 15/01/2018 3 Aerographics, Dog Lane, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DH 20180144 25/05/2018 1 Rhianva, 6 Little Lane, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DQ 20180824 23/07/2018 1 The Lindens, Drayton Lane, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3AN 20180874 20/07/2018 1 Land Adj. 25 Coltsfoot Road, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3SZ 20181624 28/11/2018 2 181 Holt Road, Horsford,, Norwich, NR10 3DX 20181677 13/12/2018 0 136 Holt Road, Horsford, Norwich, NR10 3DW 20190010 21/03/2019 1 Oak Tree Bungalow, 57 Coltishall Lane, Horsham St Faith, NR10 3HU 20170293 18/04/2017 1 Land Adj. 80 Newton Street,,, Newton St Faith, Norwich, NR10 3AD 20170788 09/10/2017 2 Land Adj. 80 Newton Street, Newton St Faith, Norwich, NR10 3AD 20171968 19/12/2017 2 190 Manor Road, Newton St Faith, Norwich, NR10 3LG 20180809 28/12/2018 1 Cedar Lodge, Hall Lane, Horstead With Stanninghal, Norwich, NR12 7BB 20161109 26/05/2017 1 Cedars, 16 Green Lane, Horstead With Stanninghal, Norwich, NR12 7EL 20181635 21/11/2018 0 17, Station Road, Lingwood, Norwich, NR13 4AU 20150052 10/03/2015 0 Land at Lodge Road, Lingwood, Norwich 20150754 27/09/2016 7 Poplar Farm, Lingwood Road, North Burlingham, Norwich, NR13 4ST 20170268 12/04/2017 1 Church View, Church Road, Lingwood, Norwich, NR13 4TR 20171617 20/11/2017 0 2 Saint Edmunds Road, Lingwood, Norwich, NR13 4LU 20171843 14/12/2017 1 Land West of Old Norwich Road, Marsham, Norwich, NR10 5PS 20161103 27/12/2017 6 Land to Rear of 42-46 High Street, Marsham, Norwich, NR10 5AE 20161232 13/02/2017 8 Fengate Farm, Fengate, Marsham, Norwich, NR10 5PT 20181827 22/01/2019 5 Rounce Farm, 1 Allison Street, Marsham, Norwich, NR10 5PJ 20181948 29/01/2019 1 72, Norman Drive, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7HW 20142005 04/02/2015 1 Land to Rear of 243, St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7AP 20150938 21/08/2015 0 Lodge Farm, 299 St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BH 20151827 05/01/2016 3 Land at Saint Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BH 20161178 12/09/2016 1 Plot 5, Land at St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich 20161731 05/12/2016 0 Plot 12, St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BW 20162023 17/03/2017 1 Plot 10, St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BW 20162102 20/03/2017 0 Plot 11, St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BL 20162108 24/02/2017 0 Plot 2, St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BL 20170220 13/04/2017 0 Repton House, Parkside Drive, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7DP 20170222 16/06/2017 0 Plot 9, St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BW 20170739 20/06/2017 0 Plot 1,Land at St. Faith's Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BL 20170979 16/11/2017 1 Plot 3, St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich 20171434 05/10/2017 0 Plot 8,St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BW 20172180 09/02/2018 1 Plot 7 St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich 20180770 03/07/2018 1 Plot 4,Land at St Faiths Road, Old Catton, Norwich, NR6 7BL 20181929 22/01/2019 1 The Old Chapel, The Street, Oulton, Norwich, NR11 6AF 20180720 25/06/2018 1 The Grange Barn, Yarmouth Road, Postwick, Norwich, NR13 5HA 20140880 04/07/2014 0 Cherry Cottage, 23, Oaks Lane, Postwick, Norwich, NR13 5HD 20150841 03/08/2015 0 Field Barn, Heath Farm, Broadland Way, Postwick, Norwich, NR13 5HB 20160433 11/05/2016 1 9, Church Road, Postwick, Norwich, NR13 5HN 20160936 16/08/2016 0 Land adjacent 10 Oaks Lane, Postwick, Norwich, NR13 5HD 20170134 17/03/2017 1 School Playing Field, Green Lane West, Rackheath, Norwich, NR13 6LU 20161667 11/01/2017 1 8 Bernard Close, Rackheath, Norwich, NR13 6QS 20181971 15/02/2019 0 Gazebo Farm, Newman Road, Rackheath, Norwich, NR13 6LG 20182008 20/02/2019 1 8, Chapel Field, Reedham, Norwich, NR13 3TP 20141536 16/10/2014 0 Wood Farm, Low Farm Road, Reedham, Norwich, NR13 3HE 20151394 27/07/2016 1 12 New Road, Reedham, Norwich, NR13 3TR 20161761 29/11/2016 1 Land Opposite Cornfield Bungalow, Station Road, Reedham, Norwich, NR13 3TB 20170554 26/06/2017 2 Land at Station Road, Reedham 20171054 21/09/2017 4 Thickthorn, 12 Church Road, Reedham, Norwich, NR13 3TY 20171129 30/08/2017 0 Thorney Farm, Guestwick Road, Reepham 20020478 01/10/2002 1 Leeds Farm,, Nowhere Lane,, Whitwell,, NR10 4RF 20090855 23/02/2011 1 Reepham Motors, 31 School Road, Reepham, Norwich, NR10 4JP 20141445 13/01/2015 4 Wood Farm Barn, Brick Kiln Lane, Reepham, Norwich, NR10 4RR 20160811 28/06/2016 1 32 School Road,,, Reepham, Norwich, NR10 4JP 20161817 23/01/2017 8 Brick Kiln Farm, Kerdiston, Reepham, Norwich, NR10 4RR 20171193 01/09/2017 1 Beaver House, Norwich Road, Reepham, Norwich, NR10 4JN 20171548 17/10/2017 0 Agricultural Building, Mill Road, Reepham, Norwich, NR10 4JU 20171718 13/12/2017 1 Former Piggery, Vale Farm, Dereham Road, Reepham, Norwich, NR10 4QX 20180852 10/07/2018 2 Moorcroft, The Moor, Reepham, Norwich, NR10 4NL 20181423 13/11/2018 1 Park Farm, Park Lane, Reepham, Norwich, NR10 4JZ 20181877 11/02/2019 2 The Black Barn, The Street, Ringland, Norwich, NR8 6JA 20150027 04/03/2015 0 10, Station Road, Salhouse, Norwich, NR13 6NX 20160659 26/05/2016 0 The Lodge, Vicarage Road, Salhouse, Norwich, NR13 6HD 20162103 08/03/2017 1 Land adjacent Station Lodge, Howletts Loke, Salhouse, Norwich, NR13 6EX 20171207 21/09/2018 4 Land to rear of 68 Lower Street, Salhouse, Norwich, NR13 6RB 20171302 25/10/2017 4 Land Adjoining Ashleigh, Chapel Loke, Salhouse, Norwich, NR13 6RA 20171708 01/12/2017 1 Longacre, Howletts Loke, Salhouse, Norwich, NR13 6EZ 20172054 17/01/2018 1 Redwing, Howletts Loke, Salhouse, Norwich, NR13 6EY 20180039 22/02/2018 0 Land At Hall Drive, Hall Drive, Salhouse, Norwich, NR13 6RS 20181107 18/09/2018 0 Forest Farm House, Burnthouse Lane, Wood Dalling, Norwich, NR11 6RZ 20170797 27/07/2017 0 Bridgefoot Cottage, Heydon Road, Salle, Norwich, NR10 4SF 20171110 27/10/2017 1 Land Adj. 2 Hamilton Close, South Walsham, Norwich, NR13 6DP 20161715 09/12/2016 0 The Old Post Office, 3 The Street, South Walsham, Norwich, NR13 6AH 20180203 28/03/2018 0 Oak Farm, Acle Road, South Walsham, Norwich, NR13 6DD 20180688 05/07/2018 1 11 Newport Road, South Walsham, Norwich, NR13 6DS 20180816 10/07/2018 0 156, Park Road, Spixworth, Norwich, NR10 3NP 20151526 21/10/2015 1 Land Rear of 81, Buxton Road, Spixworth, Norwich, NR10 3PP 20160166 14/04/2016 2 Foxley Wood, Buxton Road, Spixworth, Norwich, NR10 3FJ 20160759 29/09/2016 4 97 Buxton Road, Spixworth, Norwich, NR10 3PW 20170557 22/05/2017 0 51 Ivy Road, Spixworth, Norwich, NR10 3PY 20171424 29/09/2017 1 2 Marshall Close, Spixworth, Norwich, NR10 3NX 20182030 06/02/2019 1 152 Park Road, Spixworth, Norwich, NR10 3NP 20182078 01/03/2019 0 2, Wroxham Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8TZ 20121032 22/01/2013 2 53A, Cromwell Road,,, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8XJ 20141199 09/09/2014 0 Garage Site, Adj to, 13 Stonehouse Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8AR 20150056 16/02/2015 2 3, Clover Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8TE 20151960 14/01/2016 0 51, Cozens Hardy Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8QG 20152062 28/01/2016 0 Land Adj 19 Church Lane, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8AY 20160457 14/04/2016 1 32, Wroxham Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8TY 20161054 13/07/2016 1 52 Blackwell Avenue, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8XW 20161501 25/10/2016 2 Grange Cottage, Salhouse Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR13 6LA 20161933 05/01/2017 0 102 Wroxham Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8EX 20162180 09/02/2017 1 58 Russell Avenue, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8XF 20170397 27/04/2017 1 4 Hammond Way, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 9HP 20171507 05/10/2018 1 Grange Cottage, Salhouse Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR13 6LA 20171961 15/01/2018 1 45 Tills Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR6 7QZ 20180067 09/03/2018 1 14 Adams Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR7 8QT 20180295 29/03/2018 1 9 Lowry Cole Road, Sprowston, Norwich, NR6 7QT 20181069 20/08/2018 1 Woodland Stable, Shortthorn Road, Stratton Strawless, Norwich, NR10 5NX 20161500 07/11/2016 0 The Homelands, The Wilderness, Shortthorn Road, Stratton Strawless, Norwich, NR10 5NX 20162063 13/02/2017 2 The Vines, Shortthorn Road, Stratton Strawless, Norwich, NR10 5NU 20181559 21/12/2018 0 Stable Yard,The Old Hall,Low Road,Strumpshaw 20051505 21/12/2005 3 Pond Farm, Buckenham Road, Strumpshaw, Norwich, NR13 4NL 20142024 16/03/2015 0 Land to Rear of The Old Forge & The Old Forge Barn, Hemblington Road, Strumpshaw, Norwich, NR13 4NE 20151718 08/12/2015 1 Glebe Farm, 10 Norwich Road, Strumpshaw, Norwich, NR13 4NT 20161680 28/11/2016 1 31 Norwich Road, Strumpshaw, Norwich, NR13 4BH 20171722 27/11/2017 3 Olde Cottage,1 The Loke,,, Strumpshaw, Norwich, NR13 4NU 20180378 10/05/2018 1 Land off Broad Lane, Swannington 20150702 30/07/2015 1 Upgate Barn, Upgate, Swannington, Norwich, NR9 5AH 20180301 11/06/2018 1 Rear of, 155, Fakenham Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6LX 20150462 07/05/2015 1 Land adj. Fir Covert Farm, Fir Covert Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR10 4DT 20160011 07/04/2016 2 Land to the North of Scotch Hill Road, Taverham, Norwich 20160330 18/08/2016 1 Highfield, Highland Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6QP 20160647 17/05/2016 0 204, Fakenham Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6LY 20161323 26/09/2016 1 80A Taverham Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6SB 20170621 28/06/2017 5 Long Acre, Fir Covert Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6HT 20170737 20/06/2017 1 Land Off Scotch Hill Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6LB 20170757 01/08/2017 1 248 Fakenham Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6QW 20171107 16/08/2017 0 Taverham Mill, Costessey Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6TA 20171300 26/09/2017 0 Elmhurst, Highland Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6QP 20171648 01/11/2017 0 The Orchard, Scotch Hill Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6LB 20171798 30/11/2017 2 Suncroft, Scotch Hill Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6LB 20180373 01/05/2018 1 84 Taverham Road, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6SB 20180656 06/08/2018 2 52 Laburnum Avenue, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6JX 20181204 30/08/2018 1 122 Haverscroft Close, Taverham, Norwich, NR8 6LU 20181933 12/02/2019 2 16A, Harvey Lane, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0BN 20141545 29/10/2014 1 Land Rear of 16A, Hillside Road, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0QN 20151134 01/09/2015 0 West Farm, 213, Yarmouth Road, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0SQ 20152002 16/06/2016 4 2 Caston Road, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0LS 20161508 25/10/2016 1 The Oaks,, 16 Harvey Lane, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0BN 20161875 12/12/2016 8 Store Rear of 75 Yarmouth Road, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0AA 20162107 03/02/2017 1 151 Yarmouth Road, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0SA 20162178 03/03/2017 0 3 Highs Corner, Plumstead Road, Thorpe End, Norwich, NR13 5BE 20170619 11/08/2017 1 18 Stanmore Road, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0HB 20170749 21/08/2017 0 16A Harvey Lane, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0BN 20171276 11/10/2017 1 32-36 Harvey Lane, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0DD 20171522 13/11/2017 2 16B The Oaks, Harvey Lane, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 8RQ 20171569 30/01/2018 1 Land between 10 & 12 Hillside Road, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0QG 20172129 09/02/2018 1 Site Adjacent 6 Green Lane North,, Thorpe St Andrew,, Norwich, NR13 5BD 20180073 25/04/2018 1 High House, 28 South Avenue, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0EZ 20180658 09/07/2018 1 The Old Rectory, 103 Yarmouth Road, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0HF 20181156 15/08/2018 1 89C Yarmouth Road, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 0HF 20181715 05/12/2018 0 Former Church Institute, Chapel Road, Upton, Norwich, NR13 6BT 20141008 28/10/2014 1 1, Marsh Road, Upton, Norwich, NR13 6BP 20150117 25/02/2015 0 Land Adjacent 6, Church Farm Close, Weston Longville, Norwich, NR9 5JY 20151556 16/12/2015 1 Hall Cottages, Weston Hall Road, Weston Longville, Norwich, NR9 5JG 20162182 08/02/2017 1 Land to the south of All Saints Church, Church Street, Weston Longville, Norwich 20170970 06/10/2017 1 Weston Hall, Weston Hall Road, Weston Longville, Norwich, NR9 5JG 20171035 02/07/2018 7 The Duckeries, Rectory Road, Weston Longville, Norwich, NR9 5LF 20172130 29/01/2018 0 The Coach House, Forest Farm Barns, Burnthouse Lane, Wood Dalling, Norwich, NR11 6RZ 20150096 20/03/2015 0 The Barn,Front Road, Wood Dalling, Norwich, NR11 6RW 20171409 10/11/2017 1 Land adj. 67, Norwich Road, Wroxham, Norwich, NR12 8RX 20141661 14/11/2014 1 17, Park Road, Wroxham, Norwich, NR12 8SB 20151416 21/10/2015 0 Land Adjacent to 96A, Norwich Road, Wroxham, Norwich, NR12 8RX 20160471 11/05/2016 1 142 Norwich Road, Wroxham, Norwich, NR12 8SA 20171071 28/07/2017 1 Larch Grove, 14 Charles Close, Wroxham, Norwich, NR12 8TU 20180178 11/04/2018 0 Total 461

Sites of 9 or fewer homes in Norwich

Net New Homes at 1 Site Address Reference Date Granted April 2019 40 Angel Road 17/01516/F 22-Nov-17 -1 17A Angel Road 18/00110/PA 16-May-18 1 62A Armes Street 17/01045/F 14-Sep-17 1 69 Barrett Road 17/00738/F 12-Jul-17 2 1 Beckham Place 18/00185/F 13-Mar-18 2 14 Bluebell Road 17/01604/F 01-Dec-17 1 Land South Of 146 Borrowdale Drive 19/00027/F 25-Feb-19 1 58 Bracondale 16/00481/F 06-Jun-16 2 9 Bracondale 17/00435/F 05-Sep-17 4 1 Bull Close Road 18/01249/PDD 22-Feb-19 2 78 Cadge Road 18/00961/NF3 27-Sep-18 3 12 Castle Meadow 15/00785/L 21-Jul-15 1

Land To The South West Of 1 - 9 18/01217/F 23-Nov-18 1 Catton View Court 68 Christchurch Road 17/00371/F 16-Jun-17 1 68 Christchurch Road 18/00203/F 10-Jul-18 1 74A Churchill Road 16/01111/F 14-Nov-16 1 2 Clabon Road 13/00049/F 02-Mar-13 1 Kingdom Hall Of Jehovahs Witnesses 16/00563/F 15-Mar-18 3 Clarke Road and 17/02023/MA 48 Colegate 15/00976/PDD 26-Aug-15 1 138A Colman Road 18/00874/U 21-Dec-18 1 143A Colman Road 18/01137/NF3 26-Oct-18 2 The Alders 18/01026/F 13-Nov-18 1 Cooper Lane 43 Crome Road 18/00482/F 08-Jun-18 1 7 Dowding Road 16/01017/F 21-Apr-17 1 Land East Of 14 17/01558/F 18-Jan-18 1 Dowding Road 4 Earlham Road 15/00720/U 22-Jul-15 1 88 Earlham Road 16/00739/U 21-Jul-16 1 Car Park Rear Of Earlham House 18/01011/F 13-Sep-18 2 Earlham Road 63 Elm Grove Lane 16/01831/F 18-Oct-17 1 26 Exchange Street 18/01720/F 19-Mar-19 1 1 Exeter Street 15/01844/F 25-Feb-16 4 54 Gertrude Road 17/00850/F 17-Aug-17 1 17 Gloucester Street 17/01465/F 20-Dec-17 1 1 Grasmere Close 17/00570/F 19-Jun-17 1 8A Guildhall Hill 17/00720/U 11-Aug-17 1 and 17/00706/L 27 Hall Road 16/01411/F 03-Aug-17 3 Land And Garages Rear Of 2 To 20 16/01742/F 20-Jan-17 4 Hanover Road 253 Heigham Street 19/00039/F 08-Feb-19 2 Hellesdon House 28 Hellesdon Mill Lane Norwich NR6 5AY 13/01152/F 13-Sep-13 3 and 17/01321/L 21 Hellesdon Road 16/00788/F 28-Sep-16 2 23 Hellesdon Road 16/00272/F 13-Dec-16 2 Land South Of 37 - 51 17/00130/F 20-Mar-17 1 Howard Mews 29 Ketts Hill 18/00617/F 09-Oct-18 1 108 Ketts Hill 19/00045/F 21-Feb-19 1 Kings Court 17/01557/F 15-Nov-17 1 King Street 1 Kingswood Close 18/01148/F 12-Sep-18 1 85 Lawson Road 17/01699/F 06-Mar-18 1 1 Leopold Close 18/01025/F 18-Sep-18 1 Garages Between 80 - 92 18/00167/O 16-Apr-18 4 Lincoln Street 16 Livingstone Street 12/02442/F 13-Feb-13 1

NR2 4HE The Cock 18/00534/F 17-Sep-18 3 Long John Hill 147A Magdalen Road 17/01967/F 06-Feb-18 1 43 Magdalen Street 16/00206/U 11-May-16 1 126 Mile Cross Road 17/01294/O 05-Oct-17 1 126 Mile Cross Road 18/00078/RM 29-Mar-18 1 168 Motum Road 16/00659/F 26-Aug-16 1 62 Mousehold Street 18/01571/F 26-Mar-19 1 171 Newmarket Road 17/01180/F 15-Dec-17 1 175 Newmarket Road 17/00946/F 25-Aug-17 1 183 Newmarket Road 18/00014/F 18-Dec-18 1 Land And Garages Rear Of 9 to 23 18/00289/F 15-May-18 4 Newmarket Road 9 Normans Buildings 15/00159/F 02-Jun-16 4

NR1 1QZ 5 Nutfield Close 18/00005/F 21-May-18 1 Land adjacent 113 18/00704/F 21-Jan-19 2 Onley Street 2A Patteson Road 18/01663/F 25-Jan-19 1 22 Plaford Road 15/01241/O 14-Oct-15 1 Land Adjacent To 25 - 27 18/00325/F 10-May-18 2 Quebec Road 105 Ranworth Road 17/01868/O 11-Jan-18 1 107 Ranworth Road 16/01161/RM 18-Nov-16 1 1 Riverside Road 18/00065/U 02-Jul-18 1 Land Rear Of 67 St Augustines Street 16/01584/F 24-Apr-17 1

48 - 50 St Benedicts Street Norwich NR2 4AR 14/01088/F 10-Oct-14 1 15 St Clements Hill 18/00042/F 11-Apr-18 1 Merchants Court 16/01268/F 16-Feb-17 3 , St Georges Street 80 St Georges Street 15/00403/F 12-May-15 2

Expired? 42 St Giles Street 16/00752/F 18-Jan-17 1 Car Park And Premises Between 25 And 27 16/00141/F 18-Mar-16 4 St Leonards Road 15 St Margarets Street 16/01936/F 18-Jan-18 3 2 St Martins Close 18/01865/F 15-Feb-19 1 58 Sandy Lane 17/00776/F 22-Aug-17 2 58 Sandy Lane 18/01049/F 22-Aug-18 2 Garages Adjacent 56 16/01098/F 20-Oct-16 2 Sotherton Road Little Timbers 15/01875/F 17-May-16 1 , 2 South Park Avenue Land North West Side Of 25 - 27 17/01664/F 14-Mar-18 1 Surrey Street Franchise House 17/01770/F 21-Dec-17 4 56 Surrey Street 117 - 127 Trinity Street 15/00305/F 06-May-15 2

Garden Land rear of 129 - 131 18/01222/F 18-Jan-19 2 Unthank Road 220A Unthank Road Norwich NR2 2AH 14/01228/F 10-Nov-14 1 224 Unthank Road 12/01923/F 24-Dec-12 1 Norwich NR2 2AH 26 And 28 Walpole Street 17/01686/F 17-Jan-18 1 Site North Of 2 18/00168/F 25-Jul-18 1 Wellington Road Streetlife 18/00960/PDR 29-Aug-18 1 54 West End Street 215 Woodcock Road 18/00498/O 31-Jul-18 4 13/01686/F 31-Jan-19 Cattle Market Street, 24 (permission) 9 18/01749/F Knox Road, Plumstead Road; land at corner of 18/00727/F 10-Jul-18 9 Magdalen Street, rear of 67-69 (outline pp) 17/00714/O 09-Jan-18 9 Music House Lane, 1-4 (permission) 17/00577/F 30-Aug-17 9 St Augustines Street, 41-43 18/00058/F 20-Jul-18 9 16/01951/F 20-Apr-17 Church Lane, 2 and Eaton Street, 18 8 (&52/L) Dereham Road, 73-77 (permission) 17/00141/F 24-Jul-17 8 Surrey Street, 25-27 16/00431/F 22-Jun-16 8 16/00978/F 31-Aug-16 All Saints Green, Ivory House (permission) 7 (&79/L) The Close, Ferry Lane Garages 18/01079/F 17-Oct-18 7 Waggon and Horses Lane, The Dell Ballroom 18/00077/F 15-May-18 7 Bullard Road - Catton Housing Offices 18/01879/F 04-Feb-19 6 Magpie Road, 34 (permission) 16/00485/F 12-Apr-16 6 Redwell Street, 9-10 (prior approval) 18/00117/PDD 19-Mar-18 6 Rosary Road, 66 (permission) 07/00117/F 23-Mar-07 6 Unthank Road, 3A 18/00252/F 15-May-18 6 Ber Street, 113-119 (Scotts Yard) (permission) 16/01266/F 14-Nov-16 5 Helleson Road, Marlpit PH 18/00812/VC 30-Jul-18 5 16/01574/O 21-Dec-18 Lily Terrace, land at (permission) 5 18/01641/RM Millcroft, Mountfield 18/01188/F 03-Oct-18 5 Pottergate, 24 and 26 (permission) 17/00305/F 25-Aug-17 5 18/00275/F 06-Jul-18 5 17/00980/F Thorpe Road, Eastgate House, 122 (prior approval/permission) 15/01129/PDD 18/00923/NMA Unthank Road, Flordon Hse, 195 (permission) 17/01791/F 15-Feb-18 5 Total 304