Table 1: Mundesley Conservation Area: Character Appraisal
and Management Plan: Public Consultation Summary
1
Summary of analysis and main changes to the draft document following public consultation
The majority of responses and comments received at both the public meeting and via written responses were in favour of
the main management proposals:
•
•
•
•
•
Need to adopt a list of buildings of local interest.
Introduction of Article 4(2) directions at Russell Terrace.
Review and extend the Conservation Area as proposed.
NNDC to support public realm enhancement schemes.
Need to regard ‘local distinctiveness’ and ‘prevailing character’ when considering new development.
Main amendments to document:
•
•
2
Several boundary changes have been implemented as a result of public consultation including:
o An extension along Cromer Road to include Trafalgar Court.
o Nos. 80-88 High Street were proposed for removal but will now be retained within the Conservation Area.
o The railway housing on Church Lane and Manor Road will now be included within the Conservation Area
o Beckmeadow Way was proposed for inclusion but will no longer be retained within the Conservation Area.
The issue/threat of coastal erosion has now been mentioned within the document.
Consultation responses (42) and public meeting (attended by 25 members of the public):
Consultee
Comments
Coastal Strategy (Senior Planner)
Erosion of the village not mentioned. He
felt this was a relevant point which should
be picked up as a ‘threat’.
Response/Recommendation
This has now been addressed within the
document.
See part 1, sections 3.1 and 8.2
Resident
Very much supporting the introduction
of Article 4 Directions but only if they
were not applied retrospectively.
The introduction of Article 4 Directions
would not give rise to the reversal of
alterations only future works to property’s
covered by an order.
See part 2, section 2.2
District Local Member
Car parking provision is adequate
within the village but prices are to high
driving people out of town.
‘Local Listing’ might deter buyers.
Local Listing would not provide any
additional powers or control to the Council
and is merely another method of
identifying buildings/structures which are
of significance and contribute to the
character of the area. The purpose of
identification of said buildings will provide
more information for the Council when
considering applications. It is felt that this
proposal will not deter potential buyers
infact might encourage investment.
See part 2, section 2.3
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Article 4 Direction at Russell Terrace, how
will the Council stop new satellite dishes
going up when someone already has one.
Can’t the Council use ‘grant aid’ in order to
encourage property owners to reverse unsympathetic alterations.
The Council has in the past allowed new
development which is entirely
inappropriate, why were these
development s permitted.
The Article 4 Direction should cover the
rear of Russell Terrace only the front
elevation and roof.
See part 2, section 2.2
The Council does not have the funds
available to implement a coherent,
comprehensive or consistent grant aid
scheme…unfortunately.
See part 2, section 2.4
It is proposed that the direction will not
cover the rear of the terrace. The rear
elevation is not visible from the public
domain and has already been substantially
altered. The real architectural interest lies
in the unity and coherence of the main
elevation of the terrace which the direction
will protect.
Resident
The residents of Russell Terrace should
be consulted.
See part 2, section 2.2
The residents of Russell Terrace will be
notified prior to implementation of the
direction.
New development has been poor.
See part 2, section 2.1, 2.2
Proposed exclusion of Nos 80-88 High
Street should be left within the CA.
Resident
The car park on Station Road should be
included within CA.
Street surfaces within the Conservation
Area should be improved.
The Highway environment is of particular
importance and the Council will continue
to liaise with the Highways Authority to
enhance the streetscene.
See part 2, section 2.7
Resident
The Mundesley Road/Cromer Road area
is an eyesore which should be improved.
Enhancement of the public realm is an
important issue which the Council has
addressed within the document.
See part 2, section 2.7
Resident
Resident
Resident
There should be an extension of the
boundary to include Trafalgar Court an
important building in its heyday. Could it
not be converted to a museum?
The boundary has been amended to
include Trafalgar Court.
Some of the proposals and descriptions
might not be relevant in future years.
There should be an extension of the
boundary to include Trafalgar Court it’s an
Document is proposed to be reviewed
every five years.
See part 2, section 2.1 and Appendix 1
The boundary has been amended to
important entranceway.
include Trafalgar Court.
See part 2, section 2.1 and Appendix 1
Resident
Resident
Would the LDF site proposals be affected
by extending the CA to include the Water
Lane/Mundesley Beck site?
The new buildings on the High Street are
not appropriate, infill development should
be improved.
Keep 80-88 High Street within CA
Resident
When allocating the land the effect on the
CA, views etc was considered carefully
consequently CA designation would not
affect site allocation. Any future
development on the site would have to
respect the CA and prevailing character of
Mundesley.
See part 2, section 2.4
The document has now been amended to
retain 80-88 High Street within the CA
boundary.
See part 2, section 2.1 and Appendix 1
Resident
Resident
Resident
The Conservation Area Appraisal is an
excellent document which will help retain
special qualities on Mundesley.
There should be more Locally Listed
Buildings within and outside of CA.
It is feared that the disjointed current
appearance of Mundesley might become
pastiche.
Anyone can put forward buildings for Local
Listing inside or outside the CA. The
Council will consider any proposal and
judge it on its merits against the listing
criteria.
The siting, scale and massing of new
development should be considered
carefully.
See part 2, section 2.4
Resident
Railway houses should be considered for
local listing or CA extension
The boundary has now been altered to
include the railway buildings on Church
Lane and Manor Road for their historic
value.
See part 2, section 2.1 and Appendix 1
Resident
Can we have two separate CA’s not linked
rather than one big one?
It is felt that the single CA gives greater
strength and more emphasis in cohesion
and unity. Having separate parts de values
its significance in character and sense of
place as a whole.
Resident
A review of the western side boundary is
required many nice property’s over looked.
The boundary does now include the
railway housing but the other properties in
this immediate area are not deemed of
great enough importance to include within
boundary.
Resident
Kerb stones, chicane traffic calming not
necessary should not have allowed.
The Highway environment is of particular
importance and the Council will continue
to liaise with the Highways Authority to
enhance the streetscene.
See part 2, section 2.7
Resident
Resident
Resident
Highway interventions causing more
accidents not less.
The County Council thinks there’s a
problem with parking but there’s not, can
we explain to them there’s no need for
more parking before it’s to late.
Lots of overhead cables detract from the
CA
Enhancement of the public realm is an
important issue which the Council has
addressed within the document.
See part 2, section 2.7
Resident
Resident
Too many people parking on the side of
Station road.
Areas like around the Spar shop are
deprived and need tidying up/rectifying.
Enhancement of the public realm is an
important issue which the Council has
addressed within the document.
See part 2, section 2.7
Resident
Resident
Resident
Its worrying that Local Listing might be
forced upon owners.
I overwhelmingly support the CA Appraisal
and all its proposals.
Note from the map provided in the report
that some cottages at the southern end of
the High St are to be excluded from the
conservation area but cannot find any
comment as to why this is proposed. The
cottages are in keeping with the area and
are an asset which should be retained.
On page 9 Figure 7 a view across fields to
the Mill will be lost if building of 40 homes
is allowed as proposed.
Whilst I accept that building owners have a
responsibility to keep their properties in
good order and in keeping with the area,
the planning authority must also play its
part in not allowing unsympathetic
properties to be built. I cite as an example
47 High St where bungalows were built
some years ago which could be on an
estate anywhere in the UK and have no
The document has now been amended to
retain 80-88 High Street within the CA
boundary.
See part 2, section 2.1 and Appendix 1
relevance to Mundesley at all.
Resident
Resident
The appraisal mentions that Beckmeadow
way will be an 'appropriate surface'
does this mean that the surface will be
maintained by the council
& can anything be done to stop the Royal
hotel parking their large, smelly bins on
the road - there is plenty of space at the
front of the hotel where they could be
stored off road - if they were stored in the
front of the hotel it would stop large
dustbin lorries holding up traffic flow in
Beckmeadow Way
It is important that the overall character of
the village is conserved and I was pleased
to note that the key views an vistas in the
consultation document are considered to
be important to the village.
I agree that the view from the lower High
Street across the Beck Valley to Stow Mill
is key and important to the character to the
village. The picture of this view in the
consultation document is a poor one and
most people who stop and look across
actually cross the road and walk down to
the edge of the field.
The Beck which runs across the field and
through the village is also worth
conserving ,so I would like to propose that
the whole field be included in the
conservation area with the boundary being
the water lane road. This would conserve
the Beck and the character of its
surroundings and indeed the key view.
Most of this area is in a flood plane the top
boarder of which (which is currently
agricultural and a proposed dwelling site
MUN06) I understand has been adjusted
to show that the flood line has actually
reduced. Is this correct? On a map used
by the Local development Framework
Working Party in the minutes of a meeting
on 20/04/2009 in Mundesley ( available
on line) the flood line is at the boundary of
this proposed area for development. I am
sure that a year ago this flood line was
higher and that this area was deemed
unsuitable for development . Could you
please clarify that this flood level has been
changed and if so why has it been lowered
when global forecasts are that water levels
will indeed rise in the next 20-50 years.
I hope that you would agree with my
request as I consider that the whole view
is worth preserving and that by protecting
this whole area within the conservation
generations of the people of Mundesley
and also returning visitors will be able to
enjoy this area of the village and not have
to lament on its demise.
Resident
I refer to section 6.9 and the need for more
parking areas within Mundesley and more
careful alteration/unsympathetic uses of
buildings.
If indeed council feels that Mundesley
needs more parking why has council
allowed a mobile fish stall to park
permanently on the beach road car park.
This mobile semi static stall is open one
day a week (Sunday) but parks on the pay
and display car park all week long taking
up much needed parking space.
It is also strange that council planners in
their wisdom allowed a new build opposite
the Jonet cafe of a block of flats with not
one piece of flint in the build and also plain
grey roofing tiles totally out of keeping with
the area. How can this be justified as the
flats are within yards of an 18th century
flint wall that runs down beach road to
paston road. The only break in the wall is
for the ship public house again with
its beautiful old flint work.
How could this new build ever have been
agreed?
These situations are in direct conflict with
the conservation appraisal.
Resident/Visitor
Document is ok, but Mundesley almost
needs a by-pass, centre has to much
congestion.
Don’t put up any more metal work trees,
gardens suit the character of Mundesley
more.
Village centre was not enhanced by large
pavements and loss of road island at Post
Office Junction.
Resident
Resident
CA should be as large as possible and
footpaths and bridlepaths well marked
more field walks needed.
Open spaces very important; don’t block
view of Stow Mill with 40 houses.
The important views/vistas identified on
the map should be protected. The
Mundesley Beck field should not be built
on. The boundary should run along the
water line to protect the Village from
saturation building.
Why is Trafalgar Court left out
Resident
Adding new properties to Beckmeadow
Way will not get sold leading to ghost town
affect.
More footpath facilities needed
Resident
Resident
Resident
Extend boundary to Mundesley Beck
water line.
Trafalgar Court is an eyesore and in need
of attention.
Whole of Beackmeadow Way should be
included within the Conservation Area.
Including Beach Road 1960s shops is
ludicrous
Improve management of footpaths and
public realm
Enhancement of the public realm is an
important issue which the Council has
addressed within the document.
See part 2, section 2.7
Resident
An excellent read fully support the
proposals.