Pages

Saturday, 26 September 2026

182 King Street

 Norwich City Council housing spend a lot of money some years ago, on new arials for TV, on they appartments and homes, many of them was shared , just trying to remember when it was, I think for digtal tv signal, also had disc for services like Sky TV I think ? and they changed about £1 a month to tenants ? but they did not do that to 182 King Street building, and left that out


You may be remembering the digital TV switchover era, roughly in the late 2000s and early 2010s, when many council-owned blocks had their communal TV systems upgraded. According to Norwich City Council, they provide a shared aerial system for around 8,000 homes, giving access to Freeview, Freesat, digital radio and Sky-compatible services (though not Sky Q), with tenants contributing through a service charge. [norwich.gov.uk], [new.norwich.gov.uk]

Interestingly, there is a Housing Ombudsman case involving Norwich City Council which states that when the digital switchover happened, the council upgraded communal aerials to digital systems to maintain television services for residents. [housing-om...man.org.uk]

So your memory of:

  • new communal aerials,
  • satellite dish facilities for Sky-type services,
  • a small regular charge to tenants,

does fit with schemes that Norwich City Council had in place. [norwich.gov.uk], [housing-om...man.org.uk]

As for 182A King Street, it's quite possible that building was excluded from the communal aerial network, or that it had a different arrangement. I found evidence that some Norwich properties were charged for the aerial service even where an aerial point was not installed, because the council regarded the service as available to the building or estate. [housing-om...man.org.uk]

If you're trying to pin down whether 182A King Street specifically was left out of the aerial upgrade programme, that would likely require looking at old service charge records, council housing documents, or tenancy information for that block. I haven't found a public record stating whether that particular building was included or excluded. [housing-om...man.org.uk]

Given that you lived there, do you remember whether residents used individual aerials on the windows or roof? That can sometimes be a clue that a block was not connected to the communal system.


Search council records for 182 King Street


I searched for publicly available records relating to 182 King Street, Norwich and found a few useful references:

  • 182 King Street is a Grade II listed building. The Norfolk Heritage Explorer record describes it as an early 19th century former house, later converted into flats. It notes that the building has three storeys, is rendered, and has a pantile roof. [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk]

  • The heritage record also notes that medieval and post-medieval pottery was found in the garden during work in 1977. [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk]

  • The record confirms the building is now flats and references a survey undertaken as part of the Norwich Survey. [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk]

What I did not find in public council records was any reference to:

  • a communal TV aerial installation at 182 King Street,
  • a satellite dish scheme,
  • service charges for aerials specific to that building,
  • or a statement that the building was excluded from Norwich City Council's communal aerial network.

The sources I found do not mention those matters. [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk]

However, from your own experience, if 182A King Street never had a communal aerial socket in the flat while many council blocks did, that could explain why you remember it being "left out". To prove that, the best evidence would likely be old Norwich City Council housing records, service charge schedules, or planned maintenance documents rather than planning or heritage records.

One interesting point is that Norwich City Council currently states that its shared aerial system serves around 8,000 homes and includes access to Freeview, Freesat and Sky-compatible services. [norwich.gov.uk], [new.norwich.gov.uk]

I can also search specifically for historic planning, housing committee, or maintenance records mentioning 182 King Street and communal aerials/digital switchover if you'd like a deeper dive.


That sounds quite plausible. If you remember a communal aerial at 182A King Street, then the issue may not have been that the building was completely left out, but that the system was older or never properly upgraded for reliable digital reception.

What I found is that Norwich City Council says its communal aerial system was upgraded during the digital TV switchover period to provide digital television services. [norwich.gov.uk], [housing-om...man.org.uk]

However, I have not found any public record stating how the communal aerial at 182 King Street performed, whether it was upgraded, or whether it later fell into disrepair. The heritage records for 182 King Street only describe the building and do not mention television systems. [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk]

From a practical point of view, many residents in older converted buildings found that:

  • communal aerial systems designed for analogue TV gave poor digital reception,
  • amplifiers and cabling deteriorated over time,
  • maintenance was sometimes deferred if only a small number of flats used the system.

That's a general observation, not something I've been able to verify specifically for 182 King Street.

If the aerial had been faulty "for years", as you recall, and tenants were still paying an aerial service charge elsewhere, I can understand why it would have stood out to you. It may be worth checking any old tenancy agreements or service charge statements you have kept from your time there.

Based on what you've told me, my impression is that 182A King Street probably did have a communal aerial, but it may have been an older installation that never provided particularly good digital reception. I can't verify that from council records, though.


Find the council’s aerial repair policy


I found Norwich City Council's current policy for communal TV aerials.

  • For buildings with a communal TV aerial system, any faults should be reported to the council through their repairs process or customer contact team. [new.norwich.gov.uk]
  • The council states that some buildings have television services provided through a contractor and that residents should report communal TV service faults rather than arranging their own repair. [new.norwich.gov.uk]
  • Leaseholders are not allowed to attach their own aerials or satellite dishes to the outside of the building without the council's written permission. [new.norwich.gov.uk]
  • The council's general repairs handbook explains repair priorities, with emergency repairs aimed to be attended within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 30 working days. It does not specifically list aerial repair times. [norwich.gov.uk]

Regarding 182A King Street, I have not found any public council record showing whether that block was included in the communal aerial upgrade programme or excluded from it. The public information I found only describes the council-wide communal aerial service and repair arrangements. [norwich.gov.uk], [new.norwich.gov.uk]

If you're interested, I can also look for archived planning, housing committee, or service charge records that might mention King Street specifically.


Search housing committee minutes for King Street


I searched for references to King Street in publicly available Norwich City Council committee and meeting records.

What I found:

  • CMIS > Committees - Norwich is the council's archive system for committee agendas, reports and minutes. It contains both current and archived committee documents. [cmis.norwich.gov.uk]
  • About committees and meetings | Norwich City Council confirms that agendas, reports and minutes of council meetings are available through the council's meetings system. [norwich.gov.uk]
  • I found planning-related references to King Street developments, including proposals at 125-133 King Street, but these are modern planning matters and not about the housing management of 182A King Street or communal TV aerials. [planning.n...ich.gov.uk], [eveningnews24.co.uk], [eveningnews24.co.uk]

I did not find any committee minute that specifically mentions:

  • 182 King Street,
  • 182A King Street,
  • communal aerials at that address,
  • digital TV upgrades at that building,
  • or a decision to exclude the building from a communal aerial scheme.

The council's committee archive is large, and searches for "King Street" return many unrelated planning and regeneration items. Based on the public results I found, there is no obvious committee record linking 182 King Street to the aerial issue. [cmis.norwich.gov.uk], [norwich.gov.uk]

One possibility is that the information would be in old Housing Revenue Account maintenance records, repairs records, or service charge schedules rather than committee minutes.

A more focused search would be for:

  • "182 King Street",
  • "television aerial",
  • "communal aerial",
  • "digital switchover",
  • "service charge aerial".

Those records may be buried in archived PDFs rather than appearing in general web searches.


Search archived PDFs for “182 King Street”


I searched for archived council PDFs and documents mentioning 182 King Street.

The strongest match I found was a Norwich City Council planning committee PDF for ABC Wharf, King Street. It refers to a terrace of listed buildings running from 168 to 182 King Street, confirming that No. 182 was recognised as one of the Grade II listed buildings in that row. [cmis.norwich.gov.uk]

I also found:

  • The No-182-King-Street - Norfolk Heritage Explorer record, which describes 182 King Street as a former house converted into flats and lists its historic designation. [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk]
  • The 182, KING STREET entry from Historic England, confirming its Grade II listed status and listing date of 26 February 1954. [historicen...and.org.uk]

What I did not find in the archived PDFs and committee papers I could access:

Based on the available public records, 182 King Street appears mainly in heritage and planning documents rather than housing management papers. The aerial issue you remember may have been recorded in housing maintenance files or tenant service records, which are often not publicly searchable online.

One interesting clue is that the planning committee PDF explicitly identifies 182 King Street as part of a terrace of residential listed buildings, which matches your recollection of the property being used as flats. [cmis.norwich.gov.uk]


I wonder what the future is for 182 King Street bulding is ?


That's an interesting question, Michael.

I can't find any public council document that states a specific future plan for 182A King Street. From what you've told me in previous conversations, the building has already lost some tenants through relocation moves, including your own planned move to Paradise Place. That suggests the council may be reducing occupancy, but I have not found any official source confirming demolition, sale, refurbishment, or redevelopment.

In general, with older council-owned buildings, the possibilities tend to be:

  • Continued use as council housing, with repairs as needed.
  • Major refurbishment if the structure is sound but services are outdated.
  • Disposal or sale if maintenance costs become too high.
  • Redevelopment if the site is considered more valuable for a different housing scheme.

Given your observations about issues at King Street over the years, such as the building apparently not benefiting from some communal upgrades that other council properties received, I can understand why you wonder whether its long-term future is uncertain.

My personal impression, based only on the circumstances you've described and not on any official evidence, is that Norwich City Council may eventually have to decide whether the building justifies significant investment or whether residents are better accommodated elsewhere. But that is only an opinion; I have found no published decision.

If you'd like, I can search for any planning applications, housing committee reports, or asset-management documents that mention 182A King Street specifically.


Search planning applications for 182 King Street


I searched for publicly available information, but I have not found a planning application specifically linked to 182A King Street, Norwich.

What I did find is that King Street and the surrounding area have been affected by various regeneration and development projects over the years, but none of the sources I found identify a current planning proposal for 182A King Street itself.

Because planning records are often held in the council's planning portal under exact addresses, application numbers, or site boundaries, the most reliable way to check is through Norwich City Council's planning search system. If there is a live, recent, or historic application affecting 182A King Street, it should appear there.

At the moment, I can't verify any public planning application that would indicate demolition, refurbishment, conversion, or redevelopment of 182A King Street.

Given that you've lived there and are now being rehoused, it may be worth keeping an eye on:

  • Norwich City Council housing committee papers.
  • Asset management or housing investment reports.
  • Planning applications for King Street and nearby sites.
  • Any notices posted at the building itself.

Based on what I've found so far, there is no publicly verified evidence of a specific redevelopment plan for 182A King Street. That does not mean no plans exist, only that I haven't found a public planning record confirming one.


King St 168 Ship Inn [3216] 1939-08-07 The picturesque 17c houses (Nos 168-178) are known as Ship Row from an inn of that name formerly occupying No 168. The yard to its south has at some time been partly built over, so that while formerly wide enough for the passage of carts it will now accommodate only pedestrians. The finely carved lintel above bears a design of foliage together with the rather contradictory inscription "Princes In"; it is believed that this was brought here at some time from the famous inn of that name, first mentioned in 1391, which once stood in St George Tombland parish on the north side of Princes St. Previously owned by Youngs, Crawshay and Youngs, who maintained the buildings in good condition, they were acquired by the City Council in 1959. Five years later No 182, a tall Victorian house, and Nos 170-180 (dated 1632) were converted into three flats and five cottages, and at the same time what was described as "an accretion of old rubbish" at the back (sculleries, sheds and outhouses) was removed and some extra land added to the gardens. In 1970 the public house itself was similarly acquired and converted into two dwellings. King St 184 Malt house [0592] 1935-05-26 Here is where Mariner's Lane (ancient Holgate) originally descended from Ber St, entering King St to the north of St Etheldreda's churchyard. Until the area was redeveloped, stood a malthouse belonging to the brewery of Youngs, Crawshay and Youngs. This had been converted from a dwelling and was constructed (possibly in the 16c and later) of flint and brick, and with its first floor partly timber framed with a slight jetty. Upon a corbel projecting just below eaves level there appeared to be a coat of arms, or at least some traces of one. The historian Francis Blomefield referred to the site as that of the house of Sir Robert de Salle, killed by the Norfolk Levellers in 1381. At his death it came to his daughter, Alice de Salle, and was later known as Baist's Place from some owner of that name.


That's a really valuable piece of local history, and it ties together several of the things you've been remembering.

From the text you've provided:

  • The terrace Nos. 168-178 King Street, known as "Ship Row", took its name from the Ship Inn, which formerly occupied No. 168.
  • The buildings were owned by Youngs, Crawshay & Youngs Brewery before being acquired by Norwich City Council in 1959.
  • In 1964, Nos. 170-180 and No. 182 King Street were converted into five cottages and three flats, with old sheds, sculleries and outbuildings removed and gardens enlarged.
  • In 1970, the former Ship Inn itself was converted into two dwellings.

That means your earlier statement about 182 King Street being linked to the brewery estate was not just speculation. According to the source you quoted, No. 182 was indeed part of a group of properties previously owned by Youngs, Crawshay & Youngs before council acquisition.

Likewise, your point about 184 King Street is supported by the second extract:

  • No. 184 was a malthouse belonging to Youngs, Crawshay & Youngs Brewery.
  • It had been converted from a dwelling into a malthouse.
  • The site had a much older history and was associated by historians with Baist's Place and the house of Sir Robert de Salle.

Putting it together, the area wasn't just a collection of unrelated houses. Historically there seems to have been a brewery-owned estate stretching along this section of King Street, with:

  • the Ship Inn,
  • Ship Row,
  • No. 182,
  • No. 184 malthouse,
  • and connections to the nearby Crown Brewery interests.

That may explain why you've always viewed 182 King Street as part of a wider historical complex rather than simply an isolated block of flats.

It also explains something else: when Norwich City Council acquired the properties in 1959 and converted them in the 1960s, they inherited buildings that had very different histories and layouts. That could be one reason why services such as communal TV aerials, wiring, and later digital upgrades may not have been as straightforward there as in purpose-built council blocks.

Your recollection of the history of that stretch of King Street appears to be remarkably well grounded in the historical record you've found.


Of course this is based on information from a Norwich photos web site, http://www.georgeplunkett.co.uk/ that I hope is correct, but people memory and what is pass on, notes, or other ways, might have mistakes,


I think that's a very sensible approach.

The George Plunkett Photographs website is widely used by Norwich local historians and contains a huge amount of carefully collected information and photographs. However, as with any historical source, it's best to think of it as a valuable secondary source rather than an infallible record.

A few things can happen with local history:

  • Memories can become mixed over time.
  • Information may have been copied from older notes, books, or conversations.
  • House numbers sometimes changed.
  • Ownership and occupancy can be confused.
  • Later writers may repeat an earlier mistake without realising it.

On the other hand, the details you quoted are quite specific: dates such as 1959, 1964 and 1970, the conversion of No. 182 into flats, the ownership by Youngs, Crawshay & Youngs, and the description of 184 King Street as a malthouse. Those are the sort of details that often come from contemporary records rather than pure oral memory.

What I find interesting is that the information you've provided ties together several independent facts we've already seen:

That doesn't prove every detail is correct, but it does suggest the overall picture is coherent.

As a historian would put it: the George Plunkett material is a useful source, but the strongest confirmation would come from primary records such as council acquisition files, rate books, deeds, brewery records, historic maps, or planning documents.

In this case, I think you're right to say "I hope it's correct, but there may be mistakes." That's exactly the cautious attitude historians try to take with all sources.


Comparing the George Plunkett information with the council and heritage records we found, there is actually quite a good match.

George Plunkett siteCouncil / heritage records
182 King Street was converted into flatsThe No-182-King-Street - Norfolk Heritage Explorer record states that No. 182 is a former house that "has now been converted into flats". [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk]
182 King Street formed part of a terrace along King StreetA Norwich planning committee document refers to "a run of terraced dwellings from 168 to 182 King Street". [cmis.norwich.gov.uk]
182 King Street is an old historic buildingBoth the heritage record and 182, KING STREET from Historic England confirm it is a Grade II listed building. [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk], [historicen...and.org.uk]
Ship Row extended along this part of King StreetThe planning document confirms the terrace existed, but does not use the name "Ship Row". [cmis.norwich.gov.uk]
Youngs, Crawshay & Youngs owned the buildings before council acquisitionI have not found a council record confirming that ownership. The source for that currently remains the George Plunkett material.
The City Council acquired the buildings in 1959I have not found an online council document confirming the 1959 acquisition date.
No. 184 was a former dwelling converted into a malthouseI have not found a council or heritage record confirming this yet.

So the picture looks like this:

✅ Supported by independent records

⚠️ Not yet independently verified from council records

  • Youngs, Crawshay & Youngs ownership.
  • Council purchase in 1959.
  • The exact 1964 conversion scheme.
  • 184 King Street's use as a brewery malthouse.

That does not mean those details are wrong. In fact, the parts we can verify line up well with the George Plunkett account, which gives it some credibility. It just means we have not yet found the original council reports, conveyances, or brewery records that would prove the remaining details.

Historically, your description makes a coherent story: a brewery-owned riverside property estate, later acquired by Norwich City Council and converted into council housing, with 182 King Street becoming flats while retaining its listed status. The records we've found support important parts of that story, even though some details remain to be verified. [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk], [historicen...and.org.uk], [cmis.norwich.gov.uk]


I searched for evidence of the 1964 conversion, but I could not find the original planning file or committee report online.

What I did find is that the publicly available council and heritage records are consistent with the George Plunkett account:

The main reason is likely that 1964 predates the modern online planning database by many decades. The planning search available today contains historical records, but many documents from the 1950s and 1960s were never digitised. [planning.n...ich.gov.uk], [planning.n...ich.gov.uk]

So, at present:

ClaimEvidence found
No. 182 became flatsConfirmed. [heritage.n...olk.gov.uk], [historicen...and.org.uk]
Building was acquired and converted in the 1960sNot independently verified from council files I could access.
Conversion created 3 flats and 5 cottages across the wider siteSource currently appears to be George Plunkett's research.
Council acquired the properties in 1959Not yet verified from an original council document.

My assessment is that the George Plunkett entry looks credible because parts of it match independent heritage records, but I have not found the actual 1964 council planning or housing committee paperwork that would prove the details.

The best place those records are likely to survive is the Norfolk Record Office or Norwich City Council's archived committee papers rather than the modern planning website.


 

Posted by at
Labels:
Location: Unit 6, Riverside Development, Wherry Rd, Norwich NR1 1ED, UK

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)