The fate of a 1950s Neo-Georgian former Debenhams in Norwich has sparked a heated debate, with a recent decision to preserve the building and transform it into a children's play group. This outcome has been hailed as a triumph for heritage preservation by some, while others argue that the initial plan to demolish and replace it with student accommodation was a missed opportunity for urban regeneration.
The story begins with Orford House Developments and Benchmark Architects, who sought to level the 1956-built retail store and replace it with 377 student accommodation flats, ground-floor and lower ground-floor shops, and leisure space. The scheme faced opposition from various heritage groups, including The Twentieth Century Society (C20), SAVE Britain’s Heritage, the Norwich Society, and Historic England, who all advocated for the building's preservation.
C20, in particular, emphasized the architectural significance of the Neo-Georgian design, arguing that it was a 'handsome slice of 1950s Neo-Georgian architecture' that should be retrofitted and preserved. However, Orford House Developments countered that demolition was necessary for financial viability.
The University of East Anglia also objected to the plan, citing a perceived lack of demand, while Norwich University of the Arts remained silent during the planning process. The developer's initial stance on demolition was met with resistance, and the project faced a prolonged planning process due to nutrient neutrality requirements, a planning requirement to prevent nutrient pollution in protected watercourses.
Despite the challenges, the developer claimed that the planning officers 'almost preferred the new building design over the existing Debenham's building'. However, the prolonged process and increased construction costs ultimately led to the project's abandonment. The developer's spokesperson acknowledged the project's initial viability but stated that the economic climate had changed, making it unfeasible.
Mark Doohan, from Benchmark, echoed this sentiment, highlighting the complexities of city-centre developments and the impact of planning delays. He emphasized the importance of balancing architectural quality with practical considerations, suggesting that the extended delay over nutrient neutrality had a 'terminal impact' on the project.
The opposition to the demolition plan was vocal, with C20's campaigns director, Oli Marshall, describing it as 'wasteful and wholly unnecessary'. He praised the proposed children's adventure park, suggesting that it could breathe new life into the building's rich history as a department store. Marshall's perspective highlights the value of sustainable and imaginative reuse of historic buildings, a sentiment that resonates with many urban planners and heritage advocates.
In the end, the decision to preserve the building and convert it into a children's play group has been seen as a victory for heritage preservation. This outcome raises questions about the balance between economic development and historical conservation, and it underscores the ongoing debate surrounding the best ways to revitalize urban spaces while respecting their historical fabric.
