Sample letter objection to bore holes Thetford Building

Mr Neil Campbell
Norwich City Council
Planning Services
City Hall
NORWICH
NR2 1NH
8th August 2008


Dear Sir

Planning Application Reference no. DC/08/00710/F
- Norwich City College, Ipswich Road, Norwich, NR2 2LJ

We wish to raise the following concerns and objections to the above application which is for excavation of deep bore holes for a ground source heat recovery system. We are particularly concerned as to how the proposals will affect the area of Cecil Road at the Ipswich Road end, and the corresponding part of Ipswich Road itself.

The Design & Access Statement accompanying the above application states that the proposed deep bore holes are to provide heating for the newly constructed Eco-Building to be located on this site.

Application has no Purpose

The above building was subject of Application No. 08/00420/F which was refused by the Planning Committee on 31st July 2008.

The reasons for refusal were:-
1) Impact on the Conservation Area;
2) Inappropriate nature of the development;
3) Loss of local amenity;
4) Damage and future damage to trees

In view of the refusal of Application No. 08/00420/F, it is difficult to see the purpose of Application No. 08/00710/F.

Furthermore, our objections to 08/00420/F also apply in part to 08/00710/F.

Concerns About Subsidence

We understand that it appears this issue has not been addressed in the Design & Access statement, except by way of brief reference to “An investigation (has been) undertaken....to ascertain the suitability of the location for bore holes of this type, and it has been deemed to be suitable..”

No reference is made in the planning application to problems of subsidence to residents’ properties in the surrounding area. It is know that the general location and neighbouring properties are situated on “bad ground”, and as a consequence, many residents’ properties have, and suffer from, subsidence, resulting in structural movement to their properties. The remedial works have included both underpinning and piling.



During construction of a small access driveway from Cecil Road to Cromwell House Care Home, structural movement, caused by subsidence from these minor works, to two adjacent houses on Cecil Road, led to the necessity of these houses being underpinned. These houses are positioned almost directly opposite to the site of the proposed boreholes.

Under the circumstances, we wish to object to the proposals on the grounds that deep boreholes are likely to mean that further dangerous subsidence could result in the immediate area. This would be enormously detrimental to the residents of Cecil Road.

In view of the identified subsidence in adjacent properties, the Council is asked to require the Developer to fully investigate subsidence risk.

Flood Risk Assessment

We object to any proposals which would cause any additional flow of any kind into or out of the ground in this area. Although the College is on relatively high ground, it is very noticeable that there is a very high groundwater table. A major acquifer runs through the area. The nature of the area is such that even very light rainfalls take an abnormally long time to drain away.

Reviewing the 1878 Ordnance Survey Map of the area shows that two small streams (“cockeys”) run from the Grove Walk end of the site down towards Ipswich Road. The proposed plans for boreholes appear to take no account of the original topography of the area. We note in passing the comments on the main plans for the College Redevelopment (No 08/00255/O) that part of the site regularly floods.

Damage to Trees

Application No. 08/00420/F for the Eco-Building made proposals to remove a number of trees near the Thetford Building. The present application for deep boreholes appears predicated upon the removal of those trees – in particular fine specimen trees in the garden of the Thetford Building – because the boreholes shown on the Deep Borehole Location Plan are precisely where the trees are sited.

The removal of large quantities of groundwater will clearly have an adverse effect on the trees in the immediate vicinity and for this reason also we request that the plans are refused.


Yours faithfully