Decision made on proposed Birmingham skyscraper described as ‘monolithic block’

Proposals for a skyscraper in the heart of Birmingham have failed to win over councillors amid housing and heritage concerns. The plans for three buildings, including a 41-storey tower, were discussed by the city council’s planning committee yesterday, November 28.

A council officer’s report said the proposed development, on land at Bristol Street, Bromsgrove Street and Essex Street, would provide 550 build-to-rent homes. The design of the scheme was praised in the report, with the council leisure services describing the architectural style as “refreshingly bold and unique”.

The plans were deferred by the committee in September amid concerns over the housing mix, particularly the number of one-bedroom flats, and the affordable housing offer. An update, issued before yesterday's meeting, said it was the view of council officers that the housing mix could be supported in the inner central area “given the flatted, build-to-rent nature of the development”.

READ MORE: Birmingham council exploring ways to introduce more 20mph speed limits on city roads

The document went on: “Furthermore, it is evident that amending the mix to include greater numbers of two and three-bed units would have adverse consequences for the ability to support an increased affordable housing offer." The proposals were recommended for approval again.

But speaking at the planning meeting, Coun Colin Green said he was still concerned about the housing mix, describing it as “pretty poor”. "I don’t think this is a particularly well-designed development and it’s a massive one,” Coun David Barker said.

“I would like to see them come back to us with something better.” Coun Jane Jones said she was worried about the heritage aspect of the proposals, particularly the buildings which would be demolished to make way for them.

Coun Martin Brooks, chair of the committee, added: “I have some concerns myself - it seems this scheme is a very monolithic block on Bristol Street. I don’t like the tower block right opposite the Wellington [Hotel], I think it’s not ideal - I’m not over the moon about it.”

Area planning manager Nick Jackson responded to concerns by arguing the design of the proposed development was “high-quality” and “distinctive”. Committee members ultimately voted to reject the planning application.

Birmingham City Council later said the reasons for refusal will be set out at a future meeting.

Heritage harm

The report previously said the plans, if approved, could cause low levels of harm to a number of ‘designated heritage assets’ in the area - including The Rotunda and St. Martin’s Church. It also described the potential harm to the nearby Wellington Hotel as a “moderate level” but “less than substantial”.

“However, in my view, I consider there are enough benefits associated with this proposal to outweigh the heritage harm, with particular reference to the delivery of homes and affordable homes,” the report stated. These benefits would include providing housing, temporary construction jobs and an enhanced “ecological and biodiversity offer," it added.

On other buildings in Bristol Street which would be completely or partly lost if the development was given the green light, the report said: “Taking a balanced judgement, I do not consider the high level of harm (complete loss) of the non-designated heritage assets, to outweigh the identified significant public benefits of the proposal given their limited heritage value".

It concluded by saying the proposals would provide a “high-quality” development and make a "meaningful contribution" towards Birmingham’s housing provision and regeneration aspirations. The update issued before meeting also provided an ‘alternative affordable housing provision’ after a number of scenarios were explored.

It recommended the proposed development for approval on condition it provided either 5.6 per cent affordable homes on site or an off-site contribution towards affordable housing of £3.17million. Mr Jackson previously told councillors in September: “In terms of affordability, we’ve gone through the policy test, they’ve demonstrated it’s not viable and it’s been independently assessed.