Campaigners vow to fight appeal after planners reject house proposals for former Norfolk cricket home

Revised design proposals for proposed Lakenham cricket ground development, submitted to Norwich City Council on 4 January 2013. Image provided by Lanpro planning consultants. Revised design proposals for proposed Lakenham cricket ground development, submitted to Norwich City Council on 4 January 2013. Image provided by Lanpro planning consultants.

Friday, February 15, 2013
12:00 PM

Proposals to build 75 properties on the former home of Norfolk cricket have been refused - with campaigners vowing to fight an appeal.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Lakenham Cricket PavilionLakenham Cricket Pavilion

Norwich City Council’s planning committee voted 11 votes to one in favour of refusal of plans for land off Carshalton Road, Lakenham, yesterday.

Applicant Serruys Property Company (SPC) is to appeal the decision on the project, which also included a football pitch, allotments and a children’s playground on land closed since 2007.

Council officers will draw up a list of reasons explaining the committee’s reasons for refusal.

They include the loss of the Colman family-built pavilion and lack of open space being offered off-site to compensate for the loss of green space. SPC had agreed to a council request to provide £80,000 for improvements and maintenance of tennis courts at Lakenham recreation ground.

Archive photo of the Lakenham Cricket Pavilion. Photo: Angela SharpeArchive photo of the Lakenham Cricket Pavilion. Photo: Angela Sharpe

Terry Dunning, chairman of the Lakenham Cricket Ground Residents’ Association, said he was delighted but well aware further action will be required, including against the applicant’s appeal.

He said: “We will look at the council’s reasons for turning it down carefully and come to some conclusions as to whether they fulfil our aims. The residents’ committee has put deciding alternatives on hold. We will call a public meeting to discuss the kind of alternatives we want. As an individual, I’d like to see no housing and the land preserved as a recreation area.”

Secretary of the association Julie Ann Moore, of Cricket Ground Road, said of Mr Dunning’s suggestion: “We believe that is what Jeremiah Colman wanted it to be.”

The opponents who spoke at the meeting told of their concerns, which included the proposed demolition of the 1930s-era thatched pavilion, the number of houses, traffic access to the site and replacement sports facilities.

SUBMITTED PICTURE OF THE CARROW HOME GUARD OUTSIDE LAKENHAM CRICKET GROUND SENT IN BY MR D. VARVELSUBMITTED PICTURE OF THE CARROW HOME GUARD OUTSIDE LAKENHAM CRICKET GROUND SENT IN BY MR D. VARVEL

Angie Woodman, of Cricket Ground Road, said: “Planning applications have been submitted repeatedly. After all this time there’s now an outline planning application. The devil is in the detail.”

Shaun Wright, also of Cricket Ground Road, added: “After all these years of [the applicant] running a leisure centre, this plan is they best the can come up for this ground?”

Philip Atkinson, of SPC’s planning agent Lanpro, confirmed an appeal will be made and believes it has a reasonable chance of success.

He said of the decision: “It’s not unexpected. We are going to appeal. The appeal will be heard on the reasons for refusal, which are covered in the committee report.”

Lakenham Cricket Ground Residents’ Association. Pictured: Chairman Terry DunningLakenham Cricket Ground Residents’ Association. Pictured: Chairman Terry Dunning

Stephen Little, Green Party Town Close councillor, voted against refusing the plan.

5 comments

  • Are they still haggling over how much compensation to pay for stealing the land from the Lakenham Sports and Social Club (which resulted in its closure). If so then was it the reason the application was rejected ?

    Report this comment

    turnover

    Friday, February 15, 2013

  • What good are homes without a Tesco megastore for the people to shop at?

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Friday, February 15, 2013

  • Nice to see an article free from MPs’ soundbites, but on the other hand how utterly disgusting to see Freeman, Smith, and Simpson using a tragic accident and death of a woman to bolster their campaign for A47 “improvements”. Are there no depths to which these people will stoop to get themselves some favourable press coverage?

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Friday, February 15, 2013

  • Terry Dunning It's a brown field site needs development!!! Homes are ideal as it is close to the city center. History will always be there!!!!! The number of brown field sites in Norwich which is a disgrace the council needs to get a grip!!!

    Report this comment

    N.Snelling

    Friday, February 15, 2013

  • It has been the developers policy all along to demolish the Pavilion,just allowing it to deriorate until they get their own way.So many listed buildings have been treated this way by the greed of speculators

    Report this comment

    Albert Cooper

    Friday, February 15, 2013

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT